Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bus Deregulation

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the deregulation of buses in London.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): May I, on behalf of my colleagues, and the House, wish you, Mr. Speaker, a very happy birthday?
The Government intend to deregulate bus services in London and privatise London Buses Limited as soon as possible in the next Parliament. Free and fair competition is the best way to ensure that bus services are tailored to the needs of passengers.

Mr. Fraser: Does the Minister acknowledge that even London Transport is alarmed at the way in which—[Interruption.] I use its words—the Government are handling, the deregulation? That alarm is shared by those who believe that deregulation will cause traffic chaos and will put in jeopardy concessionary fares and the travelcard scheme. Why does not the Minister abandon his ideological obsession with breaking up the London bus service and get on with the job of getting transport moving in London?

Mr. Freeman: I do not recognise the facts as the hon. Gentleman has presented them. First, the senior management of London Transport and the operators of the London bus subsidiaries are in favour of deregulation and privatisation. Secondly, we have no intention of jeopardising the concessionary fares and the travelcard, which are two essential forms of travel subsidy not only for the disabled and pensioners, but for those who want to use different modes of transport.

Mr. Evennett: Is my hon. Friend aware of the appalling bus service in south-east London and that improvements are necessary to benefit my constituents? I understand that my hon. Friend intends to propose a new London bus executive, which would ensure that socially desirable routes are maintained when deregulation takes place.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has put his finger on the key advantage of deregulation. When privatised, the bus companies, including the London bus subsidiaries, will take the decision on when and where to

run commercial services, but the London bus executive will, on behalf of the taxpayer, subsidise socially necessary services.

Mr. Fearn: Would the Minister consider an extension of the franchising of the bus service? At the moment, one third of bus miles are on franchise in London, and that initiative seems to be working. Is not that a better way to proceed than deregulation, which seems to be a shambles?

Mr. Freeman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to tendering, which relates only to operating the service—successful tenderers do not keep the revenue. That initiative, welcome though it has been, has gone as far as it possibly can in benefiting London Transport. The next sensible step is deregulation, which will allow the London bus subsidiaries to run their own services.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are great advantages under the existing system and that tendering and licensing have served people in the peripheral areas of the metropolis, such as my own, very well? We hope that we will be not be exposed too much to the dogma of total deregulation.

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to see the private sector extend to the outer-London suburbs and offer a variety of additional services. That must be to the benefit of his constituents.

South Wales Rail Links

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about plans to upgrade rail links to south Wales.

Mr. Freeman: I understand that British Rail is planning to improve the signalling on the Paddington to south Wales line. That will improve journey times. In the longer term, British Rail will consider electrification when the existing rolling stock needs to be replaced.

Mr. Hain: The longer term is not good enough. The Government's abysmal failure to upgrade the links with south Wales means that that part of the country is in danger of becoming a forgotten backwater of the new Europe. Does the Minister agree that British Rail should extend the channel tunnel link via Waterloo international terminal not just to Cardiff, but to Swansea and, if necessary, to Fishguard as well?
Does the Minister further agree that sleeper services to Brussels and Paris must be extended to Swansea, and that a new freight terminal must be built at Swansea so that business and inward investment are given that vital artery to the new Europe from south Wales?

Mr. Freeman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to talk down south Wales and the tremendous improvements and achievements in the south Wales economy. As for freight services, the hon. Gentleman will know of British Rail's plan to run channel tunnel freight from Pengam. He should be encouraging industries in south Wales to use that freight terminal, as I have done. If there is justification for another terminal, for example at Swansea, I am sure that British Rail will react positively.

Mr. Adley: Is not one of the main requirements of south Wales, and indeed south-west England, direct access to the channel tunnel preferably avoiding central London? At the


risk of being tedious, may I again ask my hon. Friend to ask British Rail to re-examine the option of full utilisation of the Reading-Redhill-Tonbridge line, which was built last century specifically with the channel tunnel in mind?

Mr. Freeman: Following my hon. Friend's advice I went to Redhill to determine the civil engineering works that would be required to carry freight further westwards, instead of through central London. Although the idea is interesting, it presents major planning and construction problems. However, I shall convey what my hon. Friend has said to British Rail.

Mr. Wigley: Is not the Minister aware that the quality of rolling stock on the south Wales line is already far from satisfactory? Substandard rolling stock is frequently being used and, partly as a consequence, trains are running late. British Rail needs to invest massively, not only on the line to Swansea, but on the one through to Fishguard to serve Ireland, and likewise on the Crewe to Holyhead line. Will my hon. Friend take up the issue with British Rail?

Mr. Freeman: British Rail is engaged in its largest investment programme for 30 years, led by Sir Bob Reid, in whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have total confidence. This year, he and his board are leading an investment programme of £1·1 billion, and it is for them to make judgments about priorities. I recently visited Holyhead and rode on the railway line from Chester. British Rail is taking steps to improve journey times on the north Wales line.

M4 Widening

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on the scheme to widen the M4.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): The three commissions to study the need and options for increasing capacity on the length of the M4 between the M25 and junction 15 are proceeding satisfactorily, so the proposals can be announced next spring.

Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that that report of good progress will be well received in Swindon and elsewhere along the length of the M4. He will be aware of the fact that seven of my constituents were killed in an horrendous accident on the M4 in the spring of this year. In that context, what can be done to improve road safety on the M4, especially in relation to fog warning signals, motorway lighting and central reservation barriers, which have proved ineffective in preventing cross-over accidents?

Mr. Chope: I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of the Government's strategy to continue to invest heavily in the motorway network and the plans for the M4, which involve expenditure of about £600 million. It is fair to say that the accident on the M4 to which my hon. Friend referred was caused not by a vehicle crossing over the central reservation, but by a vehicle bouncing back off the central reservation. At the inquest it came out clearly that many people involved in the accident were driving too fast and too close together for the prevailing weather conditions. Earlier this month I announced the introduction of motorway matrix signs on the M4 that can

display a fog legend. I hope that that will further reinforce the message to road users during foggy weather that it is indeed foggy, although that should be self-evident to responsible motorists.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister will be aware that the M4 corridor in South Wales has brought a welcome growth of new industries along it inside Wales, but to transport the manufactured products of Wales from that country, manufacturers have to pay to cross the Severn bridge, and will have to pay even more to cross the new bridge. Why should Welsh industries be penalised when the Government know that the bridge provides an artery to Europe and the great new future which they say companies will find there?

Mr. Chope: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's party was in favour of everything going by rail. His comments show that he recognises that to have a good road infrastructure is vital to the economy of England and Wales. That is why the Government are committed to investing heavily in that infrastructure.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the channel tunnel high-speed rail link; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I meet Sir Bob Reid regularly to discuss important railway issues, including the Channel tunnel rail link.

Mr. Dunn: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman, will he raise with him the placement of an international railway station in the north of Dartford and the extent to which he expects the private sector to be involved in that important project?

Mr. Rifkind: On the first point, British Rail will consider the precise provision of stations and other facilities as part of the work that it is currently doing. On the second point, I agree about the desirability of encouraging maximum private sector involvement in the project. I shall soon appoint a merchant bank to advise on private sector finance for the new line.

Mr. Tony Banks: What progress is being made in starting to run the environmental impact assessment which Mr. Ripa di Meana has ordered the Government to undertake? Is it true that up to 1,000 homes in the Stratford area could be subject to subsidence as a result of tunnel boring? It seems an alarmist story, but I am alarmed because I have one of those homes.

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, long before Mr. Ripa di Meana expressed any opinions on the subject, the Government announced that, of course, there would be an environmental impact assessment of the project. It will take place as soon as British Rail's current work on the details of the line is complete. That answer also covers the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The matter that he raises is covered by the present detailed examination.

Mr. Moate: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while British Rail is working on the details of


the Arup route, there will be a great danger of a management vacuum in the project? Will British Rail always be the manager of the project? If not, whom will the merchant bank to which he referred advise? Is not it time to give some new management impetus to the programme?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend, and the Government have made it clear that the project should be taken forward as a private sector project. In order that no time is wasted, it is appropriate that British Rail should continue its work on the detailed examination of the line and the environmental impact assessment. In the meantime, the merchant bank that I am soon to appoint will advise on private sector interest in becoming involved in the project. That will ensure that uninterrupted progress can be made.

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold talks with the chairman of British Rail about the provision of custom-built trains for the channel tunnel from the commencement of its opening.

Mr. Rifkind: The delivery of passenger trains authorised for channel tunnel services is a contractual matter between British Rail and its continental counterparts and the manufacturers. The chairman of British Rail keeps me informed of developments.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will know that he is in grave danger of finding himself opening a tunnel which, from the first day, has no trains to run in it. Trains are already being built before prototypes are finished. The Secretary of State will be aware of all the trouble that that inevitably causes. Is not it farcical that the combination of brilliant minds that are responsible for building the tunnel, all the staff, and all the work that has gone into the project may not succeed in getting trains running until perhaps as much as a year after the tunnel is opened?

Mr. Rifkind: The Government have given British Rail all the necessary authorisations. For inter-capital services, British Rail ordered the trains way back in 1989. There is a problem, which is the responsibility of the manufacturers, GEC. Alsthom. I and Sir Bob Reid recently saw Lord Weinstock to impress on him that his company is expected to meet its contractual obligations. It will be supremely unfortunate if that company does not supply the trains on time. That has been drawn to Lord Weinstock's attention in the firmest possible way.

Mrs. Gorman: When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the tunnel, will he not neglect the impact that it will have on the A13, which runs through my constituency? May I persuade him to meet me one night at the Blind Beggar on the Mile End road, where I will be pleased to show him some of the most appalling congestion on this two-lane trunk road—

Mr. Speaker: Order. But is it on the railway line?

Mrs. Gorman: It is related to it, Sir, because the railway line impinges on it.

Mr. Rifkind: I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend at the Blind Beggar or elsewhere. I am sure that she will be able to convey to me any implications for her constituents of the channel tunnel provisions.

Mr. David Marshall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that British Rail has not even ordered the trains or the new

sleeper coaches for the services through the tunnel that will go north of London? What hope then is there for any of the through services north of London to be operating when the tunnel opens? Is not that disgraceful, and what does he intend to do to change it?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unfair to British Rail. British Rail is ready to take this forward, but it is not a single-company project. We are in negotiations with both French and Belgium railways because all three companies are involved in the very projects to which he has referred. It is only when agreement is reached on a basis acceptable to all three companies that the trains can be ordered.
The Government have given all the necessary approvals. I very much hope—and so does British Rail—that the negotiations are brought to an early conclusion so as to allow the necessary contracts to be signed.

Mr. Fry: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, will he reflect on the fact that both the French and the Belgium railways are in the public sector? If there is to be this great new European co-operation, is not it time that the railway companies at least got together so that British Rail could order the sleeper trains and thus fulfil the contractual obligations into which it has entered?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Both companies are in the public sector. When I last met the French Transport Minister, I drew to his attention the importance that we attach to the French Government's doing all within their power to ensure that these matters are accommodated as quickly and as conveniently as possible.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State aware of how disgraceful his answer was? Everywhere north of Watford will be denied proper access to the tunnel, yet he stands up and tells Parliament that the Government have no role in that. He should get off his backside and get the companies together to ensure that we have the engines and coaches to allow the north of England and Scotland to benefit fully from the tunnel.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government certainly have a role to play and I have never suggested otherwise. That is why we have provided all the necessary resources that will go towards the £1·4 billion of investment that British Rail is already incurring in respect of these matters. I also met Lord Weinstock on two occasions in the past few months to impress on him the importance of his company's fulfilling its contractual obligations to British Rail and others involved in these projects.

Tilbury Port

Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has taken place under the Ports Act 1991 to privatise the port of Tilbury.

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am pleased to say that the Port of London authority has now advertised the port of Tilbury for sale, and thus begun the bidding process for it. The PLA's aim is to complete the sale of Tilbury by the end of February.

Mr. Janman: The overwhelming majority of employees at the port, who according to a recent survey said that they supported a management-employee buy-out and would


buy shares in the newly privatised port, will want to congratulate my hon. Friend on the fast progress being made. Bearing in mind that the overriding priority is to privatise the port as soon as possible, can my hon. Friend assure me that he will give the fullest consideration to the concerns being expressed by the Port of London police authority as privatisation proceeds?

Mr. McLoughlin: Indeed, the Port of London police authority has made representations through my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). I am urgently considering them and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
It is quite obvious that the Labour party has been opposed to the privatisation scheme throughout, but the simple fact is that we will give those who work at Tilbury the opportunity to be part of the company. That is a welcome move, which is opposed by the Labour party.

Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister confirm that there is a major anomaly in the Act and in possible privatisation —the fact that the port of Tilbury is not defined geographically? Therefore, can he confirm that if that port obtains property in central or west London the property will become part of the port? Would not it be anomalous for the existing publicly owned Port of London police authority to become the police of a private company? Will the Minister resolve that as soon as possible?

Mr. McLoughlin: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers what happened to the Merseyside police force when the Mersey docks were privatised, because he will find no anomaly there. As I have said, we are currently considering the broader aspects of the matter. This is another example of the Labour party's total opposition to privatisation and to people playing a part in the company in which they work. It has not changed.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister is successful in resolving the serious and real problems faced by the Port of London authority. It will be a major triumph for the Government if they pass an important Act of privatisation while still showing concern for the real needs of people who are affected by it.

Mr. McLoughlin: I take seriously my hon. Friend's point, which we are currently addressing. Just a few weeks ago my hon. Friend led a delegation to see me and the points raised at that meeting are being investigated.

Mr. Prescott: Is the Minister aware that the Port of London authority's chief executive, Mr. McNab, who was appointed by the Government and is responsible for the privatisation of the port, was found by a recent employment tribunal to have been untruthful in the evidence and not to have kept truthful board minutes? Does not the Minister accept that such an outright condemnation of the honesty and integrity of Mr. McNab makes him not a fit and proper person to carry out the privatisation of the port of Tilbury? The Minister should use his powers to remove him.

Mr. McLoughlin: The person who will make the recommendations to the Secretary of State is the chairman of the PLA, Sir Brian Kellnet, and not Dr. McNab as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Fishing Vessel Losses

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels have been lost in each of the past three years; and what was the number of fishermen who lost their lives in these founderings of their vessels.

Mr. McLoughlin: The number of United Kingdom fishing vessels lost in 1988, 1989 and 1990, were 22, 22 and 17 respectively. The number of fishermen who lost their lives as a result of accidents to fishing vessels for those years were 18, 16 and 22 respectively.

Dr. Godman: I acknowledge that occasionally fishing vessels, even the biggest freezer trawlers, can be overwhelmed by severe weather. Does the Minister agree that some of the sinkings to which he referred have been brought about by scandalously negligent watchkeeping on the merchant ships that have collided with the fishing vessels? That happened in a recent case in the Firth of Clyde because of negligent watchkeeping on a nuclear submarine. Perhaps men would have neither the time nor the opportunity to don survival suits, but will the Minister assure the House that he will support European Commission recommendations on the carriage of survival suits on our fishing vessels? If such a suit saves the life of only one fisherman in the next year, the Commission's recommendation will have been worthwhile.

Mr. McLoughlin: Any fishing disaster is a tragedy and there have been a number over the years, as hon. Members are sadly aware. Research is under way to establish the most effective type of in-water thermal protection for fishermen when they are working in exposed situations. It is not quite as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because there is the problem of putting on the equipment and the suits in time when an incident occurs. The problem with wearing such equipment all the time is that it can restrict movement. I certainly take on board the serious points made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Martin: May I express upon my hon. Friend the continuing strength of feeling in Portsmouth about the Wilhemina J. tragedy, especially in view of the Zulfikar case in Cyprus? Will my hon. Friend address that with increasing urgency? Will he let me know when he expects to receive the marine accident investigation branch inquiry report on the matter and when its findings will be made known through his Department to the public, the relatives and advisers? Were there observers in Cyprus on behalf of his Department or the branch and, if so, what lessons were learnt from their observations?

Mr. McLoughlin: I can confirm that an observer from the Department was present at the trial to which my hon. Friend refers. The inspector is in the process of writing his report, which will be submitted to the chief inspector of marine accidents and then, in due course, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I am concerned about the length of time that it takes to get such reports published and I have asked the chief inspector and various other people to re-examine the time that is needed for consultation to see whether the bringing of these reports into the public domain can be speeded up. That would be in everybody's interests.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As reference has already been made to the tragic sinking of the Antares, can the Minister


tell us what discussions the Department has held with the Ministry of Defence on this issue? Was there any input from the Ministry of Transport, as it has responsibility for safety at sea, and if not, why not?

Mr. McLoughlin: There have been continuing talks with the Ministry of Defence following the Antares case and a number of suggestions have been made by both departments. I am waiting to publish the report from the marine accident investigation branch.

Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep and justifiable concern felt about the number of fishing boats that have been lost as a result of collisions with merchant vessels? An example of this was the accident involving the Margaret and William II, with the loss of two fishermen, in my constituency. Now that all these accidents are being investigated by the marine accident investigation branch, once my hon. Friend gets its report, will he conduct an overall review to examine root causes of the problem, including what I and many others regard as a defect in international maritime law and the inadequacy of watch keeping on merchant vessels?

Mr. McLoughlin: Yes. The chief inspector may make recommendations on these matters and if he does so, they will be seriously considered.

Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that the figures for the loss of fishing vessels that have been given to the House show that there is now cause for serious concern about safety implications? Will the Minister examine the competence of the marine accident investigation branch? The families concerned in Portsmouth and the people shocked by the revelations in the "World in Action" programme agree with Labour Members that what is needed is not just investigation of individual accidents, but a complete review of maritime safety and fishing activity in the channel and United Kingdom waters, extending to the whole of international maritime law.

Mr. McLoughlin: The simple point is that fishing accidents and losses are nothing new. They are tragic whenever they happen, and important lessons can be learnt from them. When we set up the marine accident investigation branch not long ago, the Opposition did not object to it. They did not call into question the competence of the senior officials who administer that organisation and I am sorry that they have started to do so today. When reports are published and recommendations are made, we need to look at them and act on them.

London Underground

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the programme for improvements on London Underground following the increased funding announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeman: As well as the Jubilee line extension and completion of the Central line modernisation, London Underground's programme is likely to include improvements to stations at the southern end of the Northern line; more refurbished trains starting with the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines; and the redevelopment of Waterloo underground station.

Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware that Londoners want improvements in the foreseeable future? How much of the money that we are told is available will achieve that? What real consultations will there be with the commuters who use London Underground? Will the improvements include some to the disgraceful service on the Northern line which goes through the constituencies of many hon. Members? Specifically, in my constituency, when will the escalators at Tooting Bec station, at last, work?

Mr. Freeman: As for the level of investment in the existing underground system, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that about £700 million per annum should be spent on the existing railway, will be met in 1993. That represents a significant increase in investment, and that will help the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Carrington: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable disquiet about those people whose homes are above the proposed route for the east-west crossrail and over the Chelsea-Hackney line? There is concern about the effect of the noise and vibration from the trains that will run through the tunnels. Will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient money is available in both of the projects to ensure that there is proper environmental protection for those who live above the tunnels?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that each of the three new major tube lines—the Jubilee line, crossrail and Chelsea-Hackney—will be subject to a rigorous environmental impact assessment. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that vibration on the ground is one of the factors that will be taken into account.

Ms. Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that one of the most frustrating experiences of Londoners travelling on the underground system is to find that lifts and escalators are not working? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that the programme has been slowed down in the current year, with the consequence that only last month London Underground had to report that one in 10 of its lifts and escalators was out of order? Will he now prioritise the repair and refurbishment programme for London Underground's escalators and lifts? Will he back that priority by ring-fencing the money that is devoted to that programme? Will he also admit that there is no so-called new money for the refurbishment of the Northern line and the carriages on it?

Mr. Freeman: Over the next three years, the Government will provide London Underground with almost double the amount of grant that it has received for the past three years. That will go a long way to ensuring that the escalator modernisation programme is enhanced and accelerated. That is one of the purposes of the money. The hon. Lady talks about London Underground and makes criticism of it, but the criticisms are not matched by one extra penny being promised for it by the Labour party.

Rail Services (South-east)

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, if he will make a statement about Network SouthEast's achievement of its preformance targets in


respect of passenger services; and what requests he has received from British Rail for funds for further investment on the London-Dover route.

Mr. Rifkind: While performance on average for Network SouthEast during the first half of this financial year has shown an improvement over last year, recent performance on the Kent coast lines has not been acceptable. On the Kent coast, an £86 million resignalling scheme is in progress, which should result in significant improvements.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I assure him that he is correct that performance recently has not been good enough, and that it must be better. It is important that the Networker trains are brought forward and that we see reliable carriages and coaches on the line. My constituents are receiving better services from the public sector in health and education, and from competitive tendering in local authorities. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we want to see a better performance in the public sector from British Rail, or we must privatise it as soon as possible?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has recognised the proper priorities. The Government have not yet received a formal investment submission from British Rail in repect of the Networkers. I am glad that the £86 million investment in signalling is going ahead. Recent performance deteriorated badly over the past month, and we hope that British Rail will take urgent action to ensure that the deterioration is rectified.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the autumn statement promised no new orders for the next three years for Network SouthEast? If new trains can be introduced in other parts of Europe by means of leasing arrangements, why is that system not used here so that there could be new trains instead of spending £50 million to bring up, as it were, old ones but still achieve only a poor standard of service?

Mr. Rifkind: The main difference between the Government's attitude towards British Rail and that of the Labour Government is that we have been increasing resources for it while the Labour Administration reduced them. As for the autumn statement, it is for British Rail to decide how it uses the resources that we are providing for it. British Rail has more resources now than at any time since before the days of Dr. Beeching, and that is something which the Labour Government could not begin to claim.
The hon. Gentleman talked about leasing. He should realise that unless the risk is transferred to the private sector the public sector will not be able to bear higher levels of expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, it shows why he is unfit ever to be Secretary of State for Transport.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that despite that extra money for British Rail, the service that it offers the Medway towns is a disgrace? Commuters there know that they are on the worst line in the south-east. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please undertake a special investigation into that worst line?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will know that she is in competition with others of my right hon. and hon. Friends

in making that particular claim. I entirely acknowledge that Network SouthEast, whose rolling stock is an average of 19 years old, is in a more disadvantaged position than almost any other network in the United Kingdom. That is why a substantial proportion of the resources available to British Rail are going towards the refurbishment of Network SouthEast and its very old rolling stock. About half the investment programme is directed at that particular part of the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Duchy Tenants

Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit tenants of the Duchy in the county palatine.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I recently spent a day visiting tenants on the Duchy's Yorkshire survey, and I was greatly impressed by the efficient and cost-effective running of the estates by Duchy tenants. I very much look forward to my next visit to the county palatine.

Mr. Pike: While that might be very encouraging, did the Chancellor discuss with tenants and others resident in the county palatine the problems still arising from the poll tax? Will he urge the Government, even now, to waive the 20 per cent. payment for which those living in poverty and at the lower end of the income scale are liable? Will he also give councils discretion to waive payments due, when they can see that there is no possible chance of recovering them?

Mr. Patten: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rebates available to community charge payers are much more generous than they were under domestic rating. When I next visit the county palatine, I will certainly take up—on the hon. Gentleman's part, I am sure—the case of all those Labour councillors who still refuse to pay their community charge.

Mr. Sumberg: If my right hon. Friend had a chance to discuss local government finance when he was last in the county palatine, did he mention the Labour party's proposal to remove all forms of capping on local authority expenditure, which would represent an open cheque book for every left-wing Labour authority, both in the county palatine and outside it?

Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend makes clear, under Labour not only would taxes imposed by central Government be much higher but taxes imposed by local government would also be higher. That is why there will not be, thank heavens, a Labour Government.

Dr. Cunningham: When the Chancellor next visits the Duchy, will he explain to the people of the north-west why it is that Tory Members of Parliament who supported everything that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said and did for 12 years are now queueing up at television stations to attack her? Will the right hon. Gentleman set an example, as chairman of the Conservative party, and reaffirm the warm loyalty that he personally showed to that right hon. Lady when he was a member of her Cabinet? Does the Chancellor condemn the


things that Conservative Members are saying about and doing to the right hon. Member for Finchley now—or is he orchestrating them?

Mr. Patten: When the hon. Gentleman came to the Dispatch Box, I thought that he was going to say something about the commitment to minimum binding rates of taxation that his party has signed. I will make my position absolutely plain. I agree with what Conservative party leaders have been saying about referendums for the last 15 or 20 years. I am sure that one thing on which everyone in the county palatine and on which public opinion generally is agreed is that after the Leader of the Opposition's miserable little speech in last Wednesday's debate, all should be united in their determination to make sure that the right hon. Gentleman never makes a speech from this side of the House.

Mr. Mans: When my right hon. Friend next visits the tenants, will he take the opportunity to visit the British Aerospace centre at Warton, and see for himself the extent of the facilities there for military aircraft production? Those facilities would be laid waste if Labour ever governed the country.

Mr. Patten: Labour's commitment to £6 billion of defence cuts would, of course, have a considerable impact on employment in the defence industries, as well as undermining the defences of the United Kingdom.

Devolution of Powers

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals he has for the devolution of his powers from Whitehall to Lancaster.

Mr. Chris Patten: I have no such proposals.

Mr. Hughes: Does that mean that the Chancellor has the same objection to the concept of devolution as he apparently has to the concept of a referendum? Has the stunning success achieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Stephen) in the recent by-election exerted no influence on the Cabinet, and has it failed to change the Government's attitude to devolution, whether in Scotland, Wales or the regions of England?

Mr. Patten: I note that—for the time being, at least —the Liberal party seems to have changed its position. Normally, it bases its arguments on its commitment to proportional representation. The hon. Gentleman, however, seems to be basing his arguments about Kincardine and Deeside, and the Liberals' position in the opinion polls, on plurality voting in single-Member constituencies. Liberal party policy changes from one part of the country to another.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing surprise at the temerity of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in asking a question about my constituency? Does he accept that my constituency has attracted increasing numbers of students and an increasing volume of industry? Any Department of State that had the good fortune to come to us would be very welcome.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Any constituency represented by a Member of Parliament as diligent as she would also be very fortunate.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when he next intends to meet representatives of Her Majesty's Treasury to discuss the estimates of the National Audit Office.

Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I have no plans to do so. Section 4 of the National Audit Act 1983 requires the Public Accounts Commission to examine the National Audit Office estimate and to lay it before the House, having regard to any advice received by the Public Accounts Committee and the Treasury. Treasury advice takes the form of a written memorandum. The Commission is due to consider the National Audit Office estimate for 1992–93 on 10 December.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what might happen if the National Audit Office were given the right to start crawling over the accounts of the European Community, and perhaps producing the odd value-for-money report? Is it not about time that Members of the European Parliament demanded a far higher level of accountability in regard to taxpayers' money that is being used for the Commission's expenditure programme?

Sir Peter Hordern: That is a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and I have his views.
I hope that, at the Maastricht meeting, full consideration will be given to the development of public audit in the Community. The European Court of Audit does useful work, but it is small in relation to the vast task of auditing Commission expenditure. There are also no real, regular arrangements for clear financial reporting, for the court's reports to be debated by the European Parliament, for the Parliament to make clear recommendations to the Commission or for the Commission to publish its response.
In other words, there is no mechanism similar to ours involving a Public Accounts Committee supported by a National Audit Office. It may take some time to go fully down that path, but I think it important that we move in such a direction with more urgency than has been shown up to now.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it not a problem that, although the Court of Audit cannot deal with the whole range of European expenditure, there is no back-up to ensure that the work that it does produce is properly considered—and receives the media attention that would make the 300 million people in the European Community realise where good work is being done in Europe, and where there is frightening waste, inefficiency, corruption and cheating?

Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no mechanism whereby the Commission must account to the European Parliament, and I think that there should be.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Official Duties

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much time he has spent on his official duties in the last fortnight.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chris Patten): I spend up to a quarter of my time carrying out my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy.

Mr. Winnick: They are pretty time consuming, I must say.
What would the right hon. Gentleman say to his colleagues—or some of them, at least—who feel that he should spend more time carrying out his duties as Chancellor, and less time orchestrating a campaign against the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who is apparently now being accused of losing the Tories the next election? How many by-elections have been won by the Tories since the right hon. Gentleman has held his present post?

Mr. Patten: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will be moved and touched by the hon. Gentleman's support for her views, which has been one of the consistent features of his political career.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend remember recently quoting Randolph Churchill, who said, "We trust the people"? Does he agree that it will be extremely useful and important, irrespective of the question of a referendum, to make sure that any deal that we may strike at Maastricht is backed by a free vote in the House of Commons?

Mr. Patten: I believe in trusting the people, but I do not believe in either this House or the Government shuffling out of their responsibilities. What we shall be negotiating at Maastricht is a step forward in co-operation. We are not talking about a leap into the unknown. That is what we are attempting to prevent, and it makes my views against a referendum even stronger than they would otherwise be.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Parliamentary Hours

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on his proposals for changes in parliamentary hours of business.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): As the House knows, I have submitted a memorandum to the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and also appeared before the Committee to give oral evidence. In so doing, I was expressing my personal views, and not a collective view on behalf of the Government.
I am sure the whole House looks forward, as I do, with great interest to the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not outrageous that a senior member of the Government is talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament and suggesting at the same time a

48-hour week for miners? A better way to deal with Fridays would be to ensure that 35 Fridays are allocated to private Members' Bills, then some of the people who queue up might have a chance to get those Bills into law. The Minister, on behalf of his colleagues, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wants a four-day week to try to shut up those Tory ex-Prime Ministers and others who are criticising the current Prime Minister, but the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) will keep coming out into the daylight—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said enough. What is his question? Come on, wind it up.

Mr. Skinner: The ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley, will keep coming out into the daylight—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman can express his views about the organisation of the sittings of the House, and whether they should include Fridays, to the Committee. As I have stressed before to him, when I think I carried the vast majority of the House with me, to suggest that we are talking about a four-day week for Members of Parliament, even if we do not meet on some Fridays, is utterly ridiculous. My point was that hon. Members increasingly have constituency engagements to undertake on Fridays that they cannot carry out at weekends. I was trying to take that into account. The hon. Gentleman does the House no service by suggesting that this has anything to do with a four-day week.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have no wish for a change in parliamentary hours? Will he, however, consider providing more time for very important debates, such as the great debate last Thursday on Europe? I understand that 78 right hon. and hon. Members wanted to speak but only 20 were called. None of us wants our constituents to ask what we are doing here.

Mr. MacGregor: When a very large number of Members wish to speak in certain debates, it is inevitable that not all of them will be called, but that does not mean that we are not expressing our views to the Government of the day, and that can be said to our constituents. I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point about last week's big debate. That is why we lengthened the first day to midnight. I am sure that we shall have plenty of other opportunities to discuss this matter.

Procedure Reforms

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for reform of the House of Commons procedure.

Mr. MacGregor: I have put a number of ideas to the Select Committee that is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). It is now for the Committee to make recommendations.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not it quite outrageous that, despite the fact that it has been out for six months, the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which deals with chairmen of Select Committees and their private interests, has not been debated by the House? Is it true that it has not been debated because of pressure from


Select Committee Chairmen? May we have an assurance that when it is finally debated it will be not on a take-note motion but on substantive resolutions -tabled by the Lord President by which we can make reforms?

Mr. MacGregor: It is not outrageous because there are often longer periods between the publication of a Select Committee report and the opportunity to debate it in the House. We have had much business to consider. The House has just heard that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) would have liked to spend longer on the European debate. There is much pressure on business. I hope to arrange a debate on this matter before too long, but it certainly will not be before Christmas because there is much to do before then. The precise form of the debate has yet to be settled, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has nothing to do with pressure from anyone not to have a debate; it is purely a question of pressure on business in the House.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Lord President agree that neither the procedure nor the constitutional practices of this ancient House would be affected by anything at Maastricht—no domestic constitutional proposals will be affected—so the idea of a referendum is irrelevant?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy made that point about Maastricht. The position of Conservative leaders in recent years on referendums on European issues has been consistent. In expressing his views on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was entirely in line with that consistency.

Mr. Grocott: Is the Lord President aware that many Labour Members would recommend substantial reforms of procedures, not least to try to make them more intelligible to our much wider audience through television? However, a reported view of his that is causing some concern and alarm is that we should get rid of the 10-minute rule procedure. That is one of the most valuable devices for Back Benchers to express views and to introduce legislation that often becomes law. Will he confirm that there is no intention to take away that right?

Mr. MacGregor: I made a considerable number of proposals to reduce the number of late sittings, and in so doing was trying to strike a balance between the needs of Government, Opposition and Back Benchers. I made a number of recommendations, which the Select Committee can consider, advocating more time in other directions for Back Benchers to put their point of view. The Select Committee will make recommendations and then the House will decide.

Mr. Butler: Did my right hon. Friend's proposals include an automatic guillotine at midnight?

Mr. MacGregor: No, they did not, but I hope that the thrust of many of my proposals will lead to fewer late-night sittings, which we have achieved this year because at least 20 measures that formerly would have been considered on the Floor of the House after 10 o'clock have been considered by the European Standing Committees.

Members Lobby

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will ask the Advisory Committee on Works of Art to make proposals for using the two vacant plinths in the Members Lobby.

Mr. MagGregor: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Banks: What a very dull and unimaginative response that was. Is the Lord President aware of the wonderful opportunity that has been missed? If one of the plinths in the Members Lobby had been occupied by a statue of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), one year ago almost to the day joyous Londoners could have pulled it down, rather like Muscovites toppled the statue of Feliks Dzerzhinsky? If Stalinists in eastern Europe are to have their statues toppled, why did not we have an opportunity to do it to the west's great Stalinist? In view of her good contribution on Europe, may we have a statue out there, provided that she meets the necessary qualification?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman may have been doing his research after all. I was going to accuse him of not having done his research and of frothing at the mouth to no purpose. He will know that, by common consent and usage, there is a 10-year qualification for the plinths. He may have been quite outrageously referring to that in the final part of his question. That is the answer in relation to the question of any others appearing on the plinths.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a distinguished and distinctive member of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should have known about the 10-year rule? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be for a successor Committee to decide whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) should be commemorated and that that Committee may decide that it would be better to have a free vote in the House on that subject rather than a referendum?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made plain my view on referendums. I have made it clear that the Government Front Bench is being entirely consistent on the subject of referendums. We have consistently followed the view of Conservative leaders since 1975, when the matter was seriously debated in relation to European issues.
As for the plinth, my hon. Friend is right to say that that will be a matter for some perhaps long-distant Committee to consider again.

Disabled People (Access)

Mr. Cox: To ask the Lord President of the Council when facilities are to be provided to help disabled people enter the Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the necessary approval has been given to the installation of a stairlift.

Mr. Cox: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that reply. When will that work commence? The right hon. Gentleman may be aware, if he has seen what happens, of the agony and difficulty that many disabled people suffer when trying to gain entry to the Grand Committee Room.


This is a matter of great urgency. If we can spend millions of pounds on office accommodation for Members—that may have been necessary—surely we can spend a similar amount as quickly as possible to give more people access to the Grand Committee Room.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Funds are available and the detailed work can now go ahead. I hope that the stairlift will be installed early in the new year.

Points of Order

Mr. Bernie Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of today's decision by the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal by Winston Silcott, may I ask whether you have received a request by the Home Secretary to make a statement on that matter? If you have not, will you use your good offices to nudge the Home Secretary in that direction so that he apologises to Winston Silcott and his family? We need also to know the position of the police officers who forged Winston Silcott's confessions.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no request for a statement, but that is a matter for the Government. The Leader of the House is on the Government Front Bench, and I am sure that he has heard the hon. Gentleman's point.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in the Chamber. Have you had any request, Sir from the Northern Ireland Office to make a statement on last evening's incidents at Crumlin Road prison? It is the Government's duty to protect prisoners. I appreciate that there are segregation problems, but we have asked the Government to do more about separating prisoners for safety purposes and they have ignored our advice.

Mr. Speaker: Again, I have had no request for a statement. I shall give the hon. Member the same reply that I gave previously: this is a matter for the Leader of the House, who is in the Chamber.

Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should welcome your guidance on the use of private notice questions. I do not wish in any way to criticise you, and I appreciate that I applied today to ask such a question—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just it. I am afraid that we do not discuss in the Chamber applications for private notice questions. If the hon. Member would like to see me privately, I shall give him more information.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). I am sure that you will agree that there should be a debate on the Court of Appeal system now that three major cases have been overturned in two years after substantial campaigns. That clearly underlines the need for a change in the appeal court system to allow people to have their cases brought before the court without the necessity of a five-year campaign by friends and families. Those people have stood up for justice, despite the abuse that they received from the public.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order in the Chamber. The Leader of the House is here and will have heard what has been said.

Orders of the Day — Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill will authorise the construction of a barrage and associated works across the estuaries of the Rivers Taff and Ely in Cardiff bay. It provides for the acquisition of land and rights associated with these main works. There is also provision for the necessary framework to enable the barrage to be operated in an appropriate manner with regard to water quality, flooding, the protection of fish, and for the management of the lake so created.
The scheme embodied in the Bill is absolutely vital for the future of Cardiff. It provides an opportunity for the docklands to be redeveloped as a high quality, high density part of the city itself. It will permit the development of a city waterfront that would be an asset to a major city anywhere in the world. It will create an environment in which housing and jobs will be created on a scale which could not be achieved in any other way.
Before I describe the detailed provisions of the Bill, I would like to remind the House of the background to the scheme and why, sadly, the very many benefits which would arise from the construction of the barrage have, so far, been denied to the people of Cardiff.
Seldom can the provisions of a Bill coming before this House for a Second Reading have been so thoroughly debated and examined already on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place. Many hon. Members will remember that we last debated the provisions of a Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill on 16 April this year. That was a private Bill promoted jointly by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and South Glamorgan county council. It had completed its passage through another place. It had undergone detailed and lengthy examination by a Select Committee of this House. Sadly, however, a few Opposition Members sought to block the Bill as it neared the end of its passage through Parliament.
For our part, the Government were just not prepared to stand by and see our capital city and its people denied the benefits of this imaginative project. That is why, on 16 April, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council immediately announced that we would introduce a Government Bill to achieve the main objectives of the private Bill. This Bill fulfils the commitment given by my right hon. Friend.
Of course, the Cardiff bay barrage proposal goes back much further than that. In November 1985 the then Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards, now Lord Crickhowell, commissioned studies into the feasibility, costs and benefits of a barrage between Penarth dock and Cardiff docks. In parallel with the technical feasibility studies, an investment appraisal study was also commissioned. These reports, published in June 1986, suggested that a barrage would not only be technically


feasible but would be likely to create significant new development opportunities in the Cardiff waterfront area and beyond.
Further studies on engineering aspects, conservation and investment potential were also commissioned. In December 1986 Lord Crickhowell announced that the plans to transform the Cardiff docklands would be taken forward by an urban development corporation—Cardiff Bay development corporation—established specifically for that task. The corporation was set up in that far-sighted move to stimulate and control the regeneration of the docklands area. In particular, it was to carry forward the engineering and financial planning of a barrage between Penarth head and Queen Alexandra dock.
Following its formal establishment in April 1987, the development corporation commissioned detailed studies of all aspects of the barrage, including environmental and conservation implications. Together with South Glamorgan county council, it introduced a private Bill into this place in November 1987. This was subsequently withdrawn in order to incorporate provisions enabling the construction of alternative feeding grounds for birds displaced once the barrage was constructed.
A new private Bill was introduced in November 1988. It completed its passage through another place with very little amendment. Progress through this House took far longer. It was debated no fewer than five times on the Floor of the House and was given long and detailed scrutiny by a Select Committee over 26 days. The Committee heard a great deal of expert evidence from the promoters and petitioners. Local residents were given an opportunity to present evidence at first hand when the Committee sat in Cardiff. The Committee concluded that, subject to some important amendments and undertakings relating to groundwater, the Bill should be allowed to proceed. Unfortunately, a small minority disagreed.
It is against that background that the Government are introducing the Bill. It falls into five main parts supplemented by seven schedules. Part I provides the necessary powers for the construction of the barrage and associated works. Part II deals with the acquisition of land. Part III deals with the operation of the barrage and the management of the inland bay, the outer harbour and the lagoon which would serve as an alternative feeding ground for wading birds. Part IV makes provision for a scheme of groundwater damage protection, the details of which are set out in schedule 7 to the Bill. Finally, part V covers a range of miscellaneous items.
The proposed line of the barrage was one of several options considered in the early feasibility studies. It provides the greatest area of enclosed water, retains the operational use of Cardiff dock and provides the greatest opportunity for waterside development and water-related recreational uses. It is a fundamental principle that the design of the barrage authorised by the Bill should impound the estuaries of the Taff and Ely. In doing so, it should not impound the entrance to the operational Cardiff dock, but should enclose the Penarth marina.
The tidal lagoon would provide alternative feeding grounds for birds displaced from the bay by the impounded lake. It would cover an area of 23 hectares and provide mudflats similar to those which would be permanently covered within the bay area. Discussions with

the Countryside Council for Wales and other conservation bodies about the best method of achieving wildlife measures are continuing.
The Bill requires the development corporation to operate the barrage so that the water immediately behind it should be maintained at a level between 4 m and 4·5 m above ordnance datum except in certain circumstances defined in the Bill. That is consistent with the provisions of the former private Bill and with the views of the Select Committee, which recommended that the water level should not go below 4 m. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that the impounded lake should permanently cover the existing mudflats. We believe that the proposed water level as set out in the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between development needs and the practical considerations after impoundment. It would provide the maximum area of water within the engineering constraints and would be broadly equivalent to mean high water mark.
As I have already said, the Government believe that the economic case for the barrage is very strong. The attractive new environment created by the barrage will result in 25,000 direct and 7,500 indirect jobs. Private sector investment of well over £1 billion will be attracted into the area and 4,800 homes will be built, of which a quarter will be low-cost social housing.
Against that background, it is regrettable that the Opposition intend to move to deny the Bill a Second Reading this evening. I very much hope that they will consider their position. I have studied the reasoned amendment carefully and, as far as I can see, all the points covered would be more relevant for discussion in Committee. There are answers to all the points.
I have just met some colleagues in the House—and I do not dare to name the Opposition Members—who asked me questions about the amendment because there were points that they could not understand or that they had not seen before. I do not know why the amendment has been tabled. Parts of it were not raised with me before today's debate. Somebody quite disgracefully suggested that the amendment was just a fictitious fig leaf which was designed to cover the cracks in the Labour party!
I very much hope that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will be courageous this afternoon. I urge him to stop any move to allow the barrage project to continue to be used as a party political football. I believe that the project is so exciting, innovative and imaginative that it should be approached on an all-party basis. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider that and to endorse the Bill. I invite him to join me in welcoming this magnificent project, which will do so much for Wales.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: For a moment I thought that the Secretary of State had reached his peroration. Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the financial consequences of the Bill?

Mr. Hunt: First, I shall deal with the environmental sensitivities of the project, because, when considering the economic benefits of the project, the Government were fully aware of those sensitivities.
The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology was commissioned by the Welsh Office to assess the affects of the project on over-wintering shore birds. That study and other environmental studies commissioned by the Cardiff Bay


development corporation and South Glamorgan county council were brought together in a detailed environmental impact assessment by Liverpool university.
The House will know that a new Standing Order came into force at the start of this parliamentary Session. It requires Bills authorising certain works to be accompanied by an environmental statement. This Bill is the first to meet that requirement. The environmental assessment prepared for the private Bill has been updated so as to comply with the new Standing Order. Copies of the environmental statement and a non-technical summary of it have been placed in the Vote Office. The House will wish to satisfy itself that any decision to enact the Bill is taken on the basis of a full consideration of that assessment of the Bill's environmental effects.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that environmental assessments, or statements, that accompany private or hybrid Bills may take two forms? Annex 1 environmental impact assessments must be referred to the appropriate regulatory agency, such as the National Rivers Authority should it deal with water quality or, especially in this case, the local environmental health office of the city council in respect of water use. The other type of assessment may comply with schedule 2 to the original environmental impact assessment directive from the European Community and it does not have to be referred to the appropriate regulatory agency. The environmental impact assessment prepared for the Bill is an example of the latter type as no reference has been made to the NRA or to the environmental health department of Cardiff city council. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not decide to have a higher grade environmental impact assessment?

Mr. Hunt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to get a copy of the environmental impact assessment from the Vote Office and to read it. I am advised that it more than fulfils the requirements of the Standing Order, which is the basis on which I have proposed that the environmental impact assessment should proceed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make some further reference to that assessment in his speech, and I look forward to that.
The guidance on the production of environmental assessments says that the promoters should consult those bodies with relevant information before preparing their statement. I understand that Cardiff Bay development corporation and my officials have consulted a wide range of interested bodies, including the NRA, Cardiff city council and the Countryside Council for Wales. It would have been a pointless duplication for the authors of the environmental statement to have consulted separately.

Mr. Ron Davies: The problem is that the Secretary of State second-guesses the advice that he receives from his advisers. Will he confirm that the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation is the Countryside Council for Wales?. Will he also confirm that it recommended that Cardiff bay should be included in the Severn estuary special protection area? Will he tell the House why he decided to override that advice?

Mr. Hunt: I have placed in the Library a copy of the letter that I wrote explaining the issues in great detail.
An inevitable and regrettable consequence of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is the loss of the Taff-Ely site of

special scientific interest. We have never denied that there would be environmental costs—I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) recognises that. Those costs had to be weighed against the economic, environmental and other benefits. Clearly, the barrage and the type of development associated with it would be incompatible with the SSSI. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that it would enable the impoundment of a fresh water lake in place of the existing salt water tidal area. It follows that the existing site of special scientific interest could no longer be sustained.
From earlier debates, the House will know that the Nature Conservancy Council had proposed that the lower Severn estuary, of which Cardiff bay is a part, should be a special protection area under the European Community directive on the conservation of wild birds. On 1 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I announced our decision—to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly referred—to exclude the area of the inland bay as defined in the Bill from further consideration as part of the area proposed as a special protection area. The reasons underlying that decision and the factors that my right hon. Friend and I took into account are fully set out in the letter of 1 November to the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
There have been understandable worries about the possible effects on houses of rises in groundwater levels once the barrage is built. The former private Bill contained detailed protective provisions in respect of groundwater. I should like to make it clear that the provisions of the Government Bill will provide householders with the same level of protection as that which existed under the private Bill, and they are set out fully in schedule 7.
I have done my best to understand and respond to the desire of people in Cardiff that the scheme should be set out in the Bill so that Parliament can consider it. However, by its very nature, the scheme is complex, and we cannot guarantee that minor difficulties may not emerge when we put it into practice. Therefore, the Bill contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend the scheme of protection.
The reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and other Opposition Members seeks to make the point that the provisions would enable the Secretary of State to weaken the protection, which, I suppose, goes alongside the need for provisions to strengthen the protection. I wish to make it clear that I have no intention of using that power at present, but I would be prepared to use it if it emerged that individuals' interests were not being properly protected by the scheme in practice. If I decided to act in that way, any regulation to amend the scheme would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Therefore, the House would have the opportunity of debating any proposed changes to the scheme.
An enormous amount of detailed technical evidence on groundwater was presented during consideration of the earlier Bill. The Select Committee that examined the Bill took a very close interest in and sought several undertakings about groundwater. One such was that further detailed studies of the possible effects should be undertaken over a 12-month period. The results of those studies were published on 25 September, and on the same day I announced the start of a three-month public consultation period during which interested parties could


make written representations to me on the contents of the reports produced by Hydrotechnica. The public consultation exercise ends on 31 December. The documents are technical, and I have arranged for them to be placed in all public libraries in Cardiff, and notices to that effect have been placed in local newspapers.
I gave the Select Committee an undertaking that I would consider the Hydrotechnica studies and the commentary produced by Cardiff Bay development corporation, and I shall do so. I shall also consider any representations received during the consultation period. I have appointed an eminent expert, Mr. Roy Stoner, the director of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at Southampton university, as my specialist groundwater adviser. Once the consultation period is over, I shall consider all the evidence.
Only if I am satisfied that the economic, safety and technical criteria relating to groundwater can be met will public funding be made available for construction of the barrage. That is the undertaking that I gave to the Select Committee. Subject to that undertaking, I am pleased to announce today that I have increased the funding planned by the corporation by £22 million, bringing provision for the next three years to £130 million. I do that in the context of the proposals in the Bill, which I believe are vital for the future of Cardiff. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill because of the inadequacy of the groundwater protection provisions in that the powers granted to the Secretary of State in the Bill would enable him to weaken the protections specified in the schedule, because the public consultation on the Hydrotechnica report is not yet concluded, because that consultation process has allowed no mechanism for public discussion of the report, and because the Bill makes no provision for an independent final arbiter on matters concerning the quality of the water environment in the inland bay.
There can be no doubt about the need for urban regeneration in the Cardiff docklands. The docks of Cardiff were at the centre of the coal-based prosperity of south Wales. Coal from the valleys of south Wales made Cardiff the world's leading coal-exporting port. The decline of the docks has mirrored the decline of the south Wales coal industry. Now, with fewer than 2,000 workers in our pits, Cardiff docklands must find a new identity and a new prosperity.
Cardiff has already begun a brighter future. South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council have sought to bring new industries and new jobs to the area. Like other responsible, Labour-controlled local authorities in Wales, they have worked in partnership with the Welsh Office, the Welsh Development Agency, the European Commission and in this case the development corporation.
Our criticism is not of the economic regeneration. Our criticism of the Bill rests on some of the ways in which the Government have approached the project, or failed to provide adequate safeguards. Indeed, the Government tried to rush a Bill through in July of this year, but the

Select Committee on Procedure said no. I have been unable to find anyone who wishes to praise the private Bill procedure; it is an anachronism. Indeed, the Transport and Works Bill which will come before the House next week reflects anxiety about the operation of the private Bill system.
Our reasoned amendment centres on three clear propositions. Each relates to safeguards and protections on issues which we all agree are serious for the project. The first is groundwater. The groundwater protection provisions are inadequate in that the powers granted to the Secretary of State in the Bill would enable him to weaken the protections specified in the schedule. I refer to clause 21, which is supposed to be about reassurance. What reassurance does it give to people who might suffer damage due to a change in groundwater level when the Bill permits the Secretary of State to weaken the groundwater provisions? The Bill gives protection with one hand and takes it away with the other.
We welcome the fact that provisions have been put in the Bill. In July it was intended that they should be contained in regulations. By agreeing to their inclusion in the Bill the Secretary of State has responded to the anxieties of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and of South Glamorgan county council, Cardiff city council and many other bodies.
However, by retaining his flexibility of action the Secretary of State has drafted the Bill so as to allow him to weaken the necessary protections. That is unacceptable; we detect the Treasury's fingerprints in this. That is why we ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a categorical assurance to the House that at some later date cash limits will not be imposed on deserving claims for compensation. As the legislation stands and under the powers contained in clause 21(2), the Secretary of State could alter the rights of householders to cover only compensation instead of remedial work, as specified in schedule 7. He could also shorten the period in which residents could make a claim for compensation and alter the cost of a survey of buildings outside the protected property area. These are not peripheral issues; they are key issues to individuals, families and local communities.
Public consultation is our second major point of contention. On the results of the Hydrotechnica report—

Mr. Chris Butler: The hon. Gentleman supported the previous private Bill. Does he want a Cardiff bay barrage to be built? Why is he trying to stop this Bill instead of amending it in Committee?

Mr. Jones: I shall state my position and that of the Opposition in my speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find my remarks persuasive. He should not put words in my mouth, however, or make false assumptions. I know that his intervention was well meant and had not a whit of political mischief about it. Knowing him very well, I know that he would not rise just to dissemble.
As for public consultation—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): rose—

Mr. Jones: I want to get on. The Under-Secretary will have a chance to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later, no doubt.
I was saying that the second major point of contention has to do with public consultation on the results of the Hydrotechnica report. As we debate the Bill, the period of public consultation is only halfway through. Surely arrangements should have been made to allow the Secretary of State to report to the House on the outcome of the consultations and on the advice of his expert, Mr. Roy Stoner of Southampton university, about the objections voiced during the consultation period.
The consultation period ends on 31 December and only then will the Secretary of State's consultant start to prepare his final report. We do not even know whether the Stoner report will be available to the Select Committee when it begins to sit. In any event, it is surely wrong, for the sake of a few weeks, to decide on the principle of the Bill by giving it a Second Reading while hon. Members still do not have the Stoner report.
There has been concern about and criticism of the manner in which public consultation has been undertaken. It has not allowed for public discussion or exchanges in which people can ask questions and receive answers from those who undertook the research. I agree with the Secretary of State that the matters involved are highly technical and that the Hydrotechnica report deals with matters that have been at the heart of the controversy. People want a chance to discuss the report, and the lack of debate is a serious flaw in the procedures that have been followed.
The third major element of our amendment relates to the quality of the water environment in the inland bay. Many points made during the passage of the previous, private Bill require to be considered. Not least are the problems of sewage discharge, the pollution of rivers flowing into the bay, leachate from the Ferry road tip, algal growth and fish protection. We have real reservations about the role of the Secretary of State for Wales as the final arbiter in any dispute between the National Rivers Authority and the development corporation. In that context I refer to clause 12.
The corporation may argue that a direction given to it by the National Rivers Authority to improve water is unreasonable. If that happens, the Secretary of State will be called on to adjudicate, and there is a suspicion that he would be inclined to side with the development corporation which, of course, is his creation, his creature.

Dr. Kim Howells: The rivers that are to be dammed, the Taff and the Ely, flow through my constituency. My hon. Friend knows that the NR A has done sterling work to clean up those rivers. However, its task is made much more difficult by the fact that derogations granted to the Welsh water authority allow it to pump raw sewage into both those rivers. If a lake is built behind the barrage, it will be nothing more than a sewage pit. How does the Secretary of State propose to tackle that problem?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend's point is central to the debate and I am sure that the matter will be pressed hard in Committee.
It would be unwise to allow even the possibility of criticism on a matter as important as adjudication. Therefore, there should be expert, independent adjudication in any such dispute, either by arbitration or by an appropriate expert body. That would mean that even if the

final decision rested with the Secretary of State he would be seen by all concerned parties to be basing his judgment on neutral, expert scientific advice.
Not only is there a lack of independence in determining the quality of the water environment but the Bill ignores the statutory role of Cardiff city council as public health authority or port health authority. Clause 70 of the previous Bill required the undertakers to install monitoring apparatus to monitor water level and quality for infectious diseases. All records were to be available to Cardiff city council to allow it to discharge its statutory responsibilities. The Bill disregards the statutory role of local authorities with regard to impounded water and that can only be to the detriment of local people.
Not the least of our criticisms of the Government's approach relates to the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which is unelected and unaccountable and has too often been insensitive to the concerns of local communities. It is a creature of the Secretary of State for Wales and the right hon. Gentleman has shown that its first responsibility is to him and not to the local community. We saw that only a few months ago when the right hon. Gentleman vetoed the appointment of a Labour city councillor in favour of the appointment of his Tory placeman. The imposition of councillor Jeff Sainsbury says much about the right hon. Gentleman and about the unrepresentative character of the development corporation.
The appointment also says much about quango politics in Conservative Wales. A man who knows more than most about quangos is the chairman of the development corporation. It is surely unique in Britain for a failed Conservative candidate to be chairman of not one but two quangos. I do not blame those involved in the development corporation, particularly the five council members who are in a minority on the board. At least they have won an election for their seats on the council. The development corporation is a creature of the Conservative Government, who clearly do not trust democracy in operation in Wales. They claim to support democracy in other parts of the world, but in Wales local communities cannot choose how best to regenerate their local economies.
That there was no need for this artificial regeneration is shown by the successful regenerations of central Cardiff, spearheaded by Cardiff city council, and of the Atlantic wharf area, spearheaded by South Glamorgan county council. Both were achieved in partnership with other public agencies and the public itself.

Mr. David Hunt: I sensed that the hon. Gentleman was coming to the conclusion of his speech. He has not yet come off the fence and told us whether he supports the barrage project.

Mr. Jones: The detail of my speech made it far more informative than that of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman is in a feeble position. He has had to come to the House with the Bill because he was unable to deliver. I understand that he wrote to all members of the Cabinet asking them to turn up and support him in the votes after previous debates on this project. However, he was not able to get enough Cabinet members to support him. He has a lot of ground to make up before he can criticise the Opposition.
The Opposition always deal with the arguments. We shall press to a vote our reasoned amendment, which will redress three important issues. I urge the Secretary of State to accept the validity of the argument set out in the amendment.

Dr. Kim Howells: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), I support the redevelopment of Cardiff docks. The area has made a unique contribution to Welsh commerce and to Welsh culture, not least because it produced Shirley Bassey, among others. It would be churlish if I or anyone else were to say that the area should not receive whatever funds are needed to redevelop it.
We are, however, debating the wisdom of building a barrage. I do not think that there is anyone in the Chamber who would deny that the area of Cardiff docks needs redevelopment; the question is whether there should be redevelopment by means of impounding the Rivers Taff and Ely. Cardiff bay has a great deal to offer Wales in the way of prestige projects, for example. It is directly to the south of the hub of administrative Wales—the capital city of the Principality. There are already several institutions of which we can be proud, and I understand that Cardiff may have a centre for the performing arts in the form of a new opera house. I am sure that we would all be proud of that. I hope that such a project will be a centre for other arts, too.
At Pierhead there is a science centre called Techniquest, which attracts about 100,000 people a year. Those who are involved with it want to move to larger premises. They have plans to incorporate a science park in an area of about 135,000 sq ft. We have seen Welsh industry change. There has been a transformation in the economy of Wales, which is now as much electronics and science based as it is steel and coal based. The science project to which I have referred could be a great flagship for Welsh industry, for Welsh commerce and for British science generally.
Why does not the Secretary of State for Wales wave the flag for Pierhead and say that the new project could become a great science centre? I understand that others will try to grab it. Apparently Bradford is interested in having it and Bristol has also made noises about it. There is already a wonderful location for a new science centre to be developed. I should like to see the new Techniquest look out across a natural estuary that has seen the tide rise and fall for a million years. I should like to see the rivers that flow into the estuary—and indeed the entire Bristol channel—cleaned. Those are monumental tasks, but they are imaginative ones.
It seems that we would be much better off if we spent money not on constructing a barrage but on cleaning up the various sewage works that I have castigated over the years. It would be well worth spending money on such a project. We would be giving future generations an inheritance of which we could be proud, and which we would surely be proud to pass on. I am worried that, instead, we shall be handing over a barrage that will do little apart from create what is hoped to be an aesthetically pleasing impounded area of water. Such projects were popular constructions in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I am worried that once again the Welsh Office is trying

to catch up with a fashion or a phase that has passed. Instead, we should be in tune with what is happening environmentally in the most progressive countries in Europe and throughout the world.
We should give thought to cleaning up the environment generally. We could be proud of such an achievement because the tide could flow in and out, the natural environment would be enhanced, and the flora and fauna would flourish close to the heart of our great capital city. Instead, it seems that money is to be spent in an almost futile attempt to attract to the bay, at a time of recession, companies and start-up projects that, by rights, should be located elsewhere.
I refer, for example, to the Welsh health common services authority which, under the leadership of Brigadier Peter Crawley, decided that it would locate in the bay rather than at Merthyr Tydfil or some other place along the A470—or even at the refurbished BBC studios building at Gabalfa, which is where we all thought that authority would go. Instead, there was an announcement, accompanied by a great hoo-hah, that the authority and its 800 jobs would be moving to the bay.
I am not saying that that had anything to do with the fact that Brigadier Crawley was in the same regiment as Lieutenant-Colonel Inkin, who is the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. On inquiring about the matter, I was told that the health common services authority had decided to move to the bay because it had been told by an independent property consultancy that it was a much better choice of location than anywhere else.
It turns out that the independent property consultancy was none other than a subsidiary of the national ports authority, which is a major shareholder in the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The Secretary of State has a duty to tell the House why that decision was made. Did it come as a sudden revelation and a flash of light to Brigadier Crawley, or was it that the development corporation, with its vast capital expenditure, needed a prestige project to give it credence in the eyes of the commercial world?
This is not the politics of jealousy from those of us who worry about such matters. We are glad to see the bay being redeveloped, and hope that it will be a great success.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from his point about the proposal to locate the health common services authority in the old BBC offices at Gabalfa, perhaps I may take some credit for that not having come to pass. There was great resentment among my constituents on the Three Horseshoes estate at that suggestion, which they feared would dramatically worsen the quality of their lives. Apart from the traffic implications in grid-locking the roads of Caerphilly, up Manor way, it might even have had repercussions for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I certainly lobbied against the authority making that move, and if I played any part in influencing its choice of the bay instead, I am very pleased at that outcome.

Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I am sure that that proposal would have affected the lives of my constituents. More of them would have obtained jobs. There is still planning permission for the Gabalfa office development, so someone will move there. It would have been nice if the health common services authority had sone so—and created 800 jobs. I


would rather have seen it move to Merthyr Tydfil, Brecon, or anywhere else, because it is an authority for 'Wales. According to the Secretary of State, companies are queuing up to move to the bay, but there seems to be no proof of that.
I concede that the current recession and the Government's mismanagement of the economy have a part to play in the fact that prestige projects are not lining up to locate in the bay. My concern is why the health common services authority, with its 800 valuable jobs, should suddenly decide to change direction and head for the bay. That seems to be a face-saving exercise rather than one that makes any sense in administrative or traffic terms —as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) said.
As that hon. Gentleman knows, journeying to and from the bay at the moment is appalling. One has to travel through the middle of Cardiff, or through a curious maze that takes one off the western approaches, along the new dockland link road. It may be that in future the bay area's traffic needs will be better served. I have no doubt that they will. I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will press for better traffic arrangements for the rest of us, on the A470 and everywhere else.

Mr. Rowlands: I had not realised that other sites had been considered, including Merthyr. Does my hon. Friend know the comparative costs involved?

Dr. Howells: As most Cardiff property developers know, in the docklands the average annual rent is about £14·50 per sq ft, while it is under £10 in Merthyr. I am worried about other costs, such as the cost of fitting out offices. Whence came the inducements for the move down to the docks? I fear that they will eventually prove to have come from the Welsh Office, via the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Who will provide the £1 million or £2 million for the offices to be fitted out? I understand that they have not even been built yet.
Many of us are keen for the bay to be redeveloped, and are glad to note that low-cost housing is being provided there. We are still worried about the groundwater mystery, however. I shall not attempt to express an opinion, but I well remember a very good party that was held in our front room in Portmanmoor road, Splott, back in 1970. About 50 paisley-shirted individuals suddenly found themselves up to their knees in wet mud. The floor had collapsed—people danced a good deal harder in those days, as the Secretary of State will no doubt remember.
Cardiff was, of course, built on mud flats, and nature takes a long time to change. Problems will be caused by sewage flowing down the Taff and the Ely into the bay. At least I know something about such problems; they were my original reason for opposing the scheme, and I have not changed my mind in the slightest. Ultimately, the people of Cardiff must decide, but they have good representatives in the House who are capable of making the right decision.
Many of us who represent the valleys would like the same amount of money to be spent on matters other than the bay, which has no God-given right to it. Although I am pleased to note that the money is designed to prime the pump of private capital, I see no evidence of that as yet. I hope that the House will support the reasoned amendment, and that the whole project can be examined properly and thoroughly.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As the Secretary of State has said, today's debate is to some extent a re-run of the debate that took place on 16 April, and we shall be deploying some of the same arguments. As on 16 April, we shall be voting at 7 o'clock, but this time it will be 7 pm rather than 7 am.
This could be described as a hybrid Bill and, in a sense, we are considering two questions at the same time. The first is whether the barrage should be given funds, and the second is whether, if someone else's money and ideas were involved, the development should be given permission to proceed. If the decisions were being made by a planning inquiry and we were the planning inspectors, would we give permission for the spending of someone else's money on such as project? Has it proved itself sufficiently?
We shall vote against the Government's proposals. Our reason for doing that is stated in the amendment: there are still a large number of unanswered questions.
It is difficult for Opposition Members to say that there is no problem and that money can be spent because the general tide of expert opinion is in the Government's favour. In fact, the general tide of expert opinion is deeply divided. Geologists and civil engineers who have worked for the Cardiff Bay development corporation as consultants have in general been willing to give the green light to the package. We do not know, however, what other experts will say. They have not yet reported. The Secretary of State's own consultant, Mr. Roy Stoner, the head of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at Southampton university, has not yet reported and we do not know what he will say. I noted that the Secretary of State omitted to refer to the date when he will be able to tell the House about Mr. Stoner's opinion.
I had imagined that if the Secretary of State was interested in doing his job properly he would have said to us, "Mr. Stoner's opinion will be made available to the first meeting of the Select Committee." I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will tell us when Mr. Stoner's report will be made available.
There are also the geologists and civil engineers who gave evidence for Cardiff residents against the barrage during the Select Committee stage of the proceedings on the private Bill in February, April and May of last year. One of them—Dr. John Miles from the civil engineering department of the University college Cardiff—stated that there was a danger that parts of low-lying Cardiff could be turned into an urban slum. That somewhat chilling prediction was made in the presence of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale), who was here to listen to the opening speeches but who is not here now. When a highly qualified professional makes such a dire prediction, one has to sit up and take notice. If the geologists are divided, it is not surprising that the politicians will also be divided.
The Select Committee's recommendations have been complied with, in that a further 12 months of groundwater studies have been carried out. The firm that carried out those studies was designated by the Select Committee—Hydrotechnica—but there has been much dispute about the way in which the 12 months' study was carried out. It was understood on both sides of the geological and civil engineering argument that the 12-month period was the absolute minimum and that what was required was a full 12-month reading of the boreholes on a four-seasons basis.
The borehole readings were very sporadic. Most of them were not sunk in the first three months, let alone at the beginning of the 12-month period so that a full set of four seasons rainfall readings could be obtained in order to work out exactly how the groundwater flows under the low-lying areas of Cardiff that would be affected. A model could then have been constructed to show what would happen during periods of heavy rainfall after the construction of the barrage.
While the geological experts are still arguing among themselves, the Secretary of State should not be too surprised that Opposition politicians are unwilling to give the scheme the green light. He cannot expect us to say, "We know that some geologists and civil engineers still oppose the scheme, but it does not matter whether they are right or wrong, so long as some geologists and some civil engineers are willing to give it the greeen light." The Opposition's job is to scrutinise critically the Government's proposals. We are waiting, therefore, for the geologists and civil engineers who have studied the scheme closely to come to a unanimous opinion and say that they are prepared to give the barrage the green light. That has not yet happened.
May I mention the water budget for the development? Some hon. Members may wonder what a water budget is and may not think that that question is worthy of the Secretary of State's attention, but it is critical because the Rivers Taff and Ely are flashy. The difference between their minimum and maximum flows is greater than that of any other river. Water runs straight off the coalfield plateau into the Ely and off the Brecon Beacons into the slightly longer Taff. A flow in a dry summer of 3 cu m per second and in flood conditions of 8 or 9 cu m per second leads to a staggering difference between the constituents of the water entering the lake. Somehow, the system must encompass the high flows in January and February or severe rain storms and the low flows when both rivers reduce almost to a trickle in dry August.
The water budget becomes critical because the fish pass must be operated to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority, the sluices must allow salmon to remigrate to head waters for spawning purposes, the boat lock must allow people to get into the Bristol channel, the sluices must flush out salt water that entered the lake while the boat lock was in operation and, finally—this is the major fly in the ointment—Associated British Ports has the right to abstract 4 cu m per second at Blackweir.
Has the Secretary of State negotiated a deal with Associated British Ports whereby it gives up some of its rights to abstract water at Blackweir, which it uses to top up the commercial dock? Associated British Ports inherited the Marquis of Bute's legacy and has the right to abstract virtually all the water that flows down the Taff in the summer. Unless it gives up those rights, insufficient water will enter the lake to operate the fish pass, the boat lock and salt water flushing.
I am aware that the Secretary of State has given the NRA an assurance that before the Bill is enacted the Government will get ABP to sacrifice some of its abstraction rights at Blackweir, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet persuaded or paid Associated British Ports the sum required to reduce those rights. Therefore, he is not in a position to tell the House that

water quality in the bay can be assured. Without ABP's right to abstract water being reduced from 4 cu m per second to, say, 1 cu m per second, the fish pass will not be operated to the satisfaction of the NRA and the boat lock will not be operated to the satisfaction of members of Cardiff yacht club. In a dry summer, everybody will want to sail in the Bristol channel, but the NRA will tell Cardiff bay development corporation, "You cannot use the boat lock because we need the water for the fish pass."
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that that job has been done? Perhaps the Under-Secretary—I see that some negotiations are going on—will tell us something about that; so far we have heard nothing. I was rather disappointed that the Secretary of State did not deal with that point.
The other important general principle that we are asking about, which the Secretary of State did not mention, is the development proposals that he expects for Cardiff bay—with or without a barrage. The proposition that he is putting to the House is that, without a barrage, there will be little or no development, but with a barrage there will be intensive development and many jobs. The only development that we heard about today was from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who referred to the new office development by the Welsh health common services authority at the Roath basin. That decision was made recently. Some 800 people will be accommodated when the office block is built. Perhaps that is part of the deal with ABP, making it give up some of its water abstraction rights in return for being the landlord through its subsidiary, Grosvenor Waterside. I hope that we will be given more details about that development.
Much more important, the Secretary of State failed to mention Cardiff university's proposals to occupy a semi-derelict site adjoining the new county hall, between Bute street and the city centre. Are such developments dependent on the barrage? Could development go ahead anyway, but without some of the risks inherent in a barrage?
I should like the Under-Secretary to comment on the university's proposals to relocate Cardiff business school and the economics faculty as well as 12 student halls of residence and about 400 houses for graduate students and married students. If that development went ahead, it would make a colossal difference to whether a barrage is needed to bring about development and to whether the most speedy and most job-productive way of developing Cardiff bay is by developing from the city centre southwards or from the barrage north towards the city centre. Many developers in Cardiff believe that there should be development from the city centre southwards, through Tarmac's South crescent proposal, linked with the university's proposals.
Universities will expand massively in the future. I think that the hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) would agree that a developer is unlikely to find the land necessary for expansion of the university anywhere north of the city centre. South of the centre may well be the most appropriate place. We need more information. We do not want an information vacuum in the House when we are deciding on the principle of such a major proposal. I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not touch on those questions.
I should like also to criticise the use to which Cardiff Bay development corporation has put its massive


advertising budget. Given that the House of Commons is about to make a major decision and that the public are being consulted in Cardiff, we do not believe that it is democratic for the development corporation to launch into a massive advertising campaign costing £2 million.
The development corporation initially said that that money would be spent in key signboard areas such as Swindon, along the M4, at Bristol Parkway station, in Paddington and elsewhere in London. I am not against advertising "Come to Cardiff", but half the advertising budget seems to be spent in Cardiff. That raises the question whether the purpose of the advertising budget is to bias debate. Money is being splashed all over prominent advertising sites in Cardiff while there is public consultation to try to ensure that the development corporation is seen in a more positive light.
One does not attract inward investment to Cardiff in the city itself; one attracts it from Bristol, London or elsewhere. It appears that much of the advertising budget is used in an anti-democratic fashion to bias public debate in Cardiff. That is a completely inappropriate use of money. The Secretary of State is probably aware that the Advertising Standards Authority has been asked to rule on whether it is an offence massively to advertise a development that is to be debated in the House of Commons. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, whose idea it may have been to advertise on this flash basis before this debate, can tell us whether this beloved anti-democratic procedure is one of his wizard wheezes.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Does the hon. Gentleman like it?

Mr. Morgan: It is a matter not of whether I like it but of whether Pembroke constituents like it.
Seven questions remain unanswered, and that is why I shall enthusiastically go into the Division Lobby in support of the reasoned amendment. Those questions should have been answered before Second Reading.
First, does the Secretary of State believe that the geologists and civil engineers, Dr. John Miles, Dr. Stewart Noake and Dr. Gordon Saunders, are wrong in their urban swamp thesis?
Secondly, will the Government encourage the university developments in the central section, linking the city centre and Pierhead?
Thirdly, what is the verdict of the Secretary of State and of Cardiff Bay development corporation on the Ferry road tip being removed or remaining in place? The right hon. Gentlemen did not say anything about that. First the tip was to be moved, then half was to be moved and then none was to be moved. Will it be moved? The Secretary of State will be aware of the massive consequences that has in terms of potential pollution of the water and the economic case for redevelopment of the western side of Cardiff bay.
Fourthly, has ABP agreed to give up some of its rights to water abstraction in Cardiff bay? If not, how will ABP satisfy the NRA that there is a scheme to manage water supplies during dry summers?
Fifthly, why did the Secretary of State allow an environmental impact assessment to be carried out by Liverpool university's environmental associates without any reference to the NRA and to Cardiff city council's environmental health office? When I intervened, the right hon. Gentleman gave an unsatisfactory reply. The matter is in his hands. If he says that an environmental impact

assessment should be carried out under the principles of annex 1, the matter must be referred to the appropriate regulatory agencies. It is not adequate to say that the matter was referred to Cardiff Bay development corporation and that it had spoken to the NRA and the city council's environmental health office. If the Secretary of State had said that an environmental impact assessment had to be carried out under the principles of annex 1, so it had to be referred to the regulatory agencies, that would have been done. The right hon. Gentleman must not shirk his responsibility.
My sixth question was raised in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). What will happen if there is a judicial review or a review via the European Commission, and possibly the European Court of Justice, of the exclusion of the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest from the special protection area of the lower Severn estuary? If that is not an important issue, the Secretary of State should tell us why he made such a fuss about sending a posse of lawyers to observe the Leybucht bay case in Luxembourg last year. A lot of public money was spent to send those lawyers there. If the verdict did not matter, the right hon. Gentleman should repay that money to the National Audit Office. I shall ensure that the NAO investigates whether that was wholly improper expenditure incurred in observing a case which had no influence on the proceedings of the House and whose findings he intended anyway to spirit away with a wave of his magic wand. If the matter is important, the Secretary of State should explain whether this major legal issue remains to be settled.
The seventh question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. The Secretary of State has not referred to the development possibilities for the opera house at Pierhead. He made a statement to the press saying that he was organising a major engineering and feasibility study of the proposal. I should have thought that it was appropriate to say something about what progress has been made—about whether engineering problems have been discovered or whether the right hon. Gentleman is jibbing because he cannot get any private sector support and industry will not back the proposal. This matter is material to the development prospects in the area.

Mr. David Hunt: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's seven questions. I counted 21 questions, but I shall try to deal with seven. I shall respond in detail in writing and place a copy of my letter before the House. In return, will the hon. Gentleman answer my questions: in principle, is he in favour of the Cardiff bay barrage and will he seek to oppose Second Reading once the reasoned amendment has been disposed of?

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. However, the question does not arise, as we do not yet know what the Government will do about our reasoned amendment. The Secretary of State is in a similar position to us. He must remember that he cannot approve a Second Reading if it means giving immediate approval to the barrage. He must wait until he receives the Stoner report. He said that until he received that report he was unable to give the go-ahead to the barrage. Therefore, I do not know why he is attempting to come the raw prawn with the House as if he knew what he was going to do but nobody else did. That gives a biased view and is a complete misstatement of the facts. He


cannot put the House right and say that if we all agree with him the barrage can be started straight away. He is not in a position to do that, which is why the debate should be held in late January when we would have the advantage of having read the Stoner report. Without it, there is every reason for all hon. Members to join us and to back our reasoned amendment.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) made a number of valid points at the end of his speech about why now is the wrong time to debate this issue. Cardiff bay could be a huge opportunity or an environmental disaster; it could be an employment haven or it could be anti-community; it could mean houses being flooded or it could result in sparkling new skyscrapers. There are many different scenarios.

Mr Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Livsey: I shall not give way at this early stage.
There must be a way through for a scheme to revitalise the docks area of Cardiff but I am sad to say that it appears that this version of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—the reasoned amendment points out some of its weaknesses—is not it. The Bill is short and it appears that the safeguards that it contains are not entirely adequate. Indeed, it does not carry sufficient groundwater guarantees.
We do not oppose the barrage in principle but we are unhappy about many aspects of the issue. For some reason, the fashion in barrages is adversely affecting my constituency. There is a barrage on the River Tawe at Swansea. That river flows out of my constituency. There is a barrage proposed for the River Taff which also flows out of my constituency. There might be a barrage on the River Usk, which is also a major river flowing out of my constituency. It appears that only the River Wye will have an open flow into the Severn estuary.

Dr. Kim Howells: Give it time.

Mr. Livsey: Indeed, give it time. Eventually that may also be blocked.
Whether we want all of these barrages is an important environmental issue for the whole of south Wales to consider. The costs and on costs of a barrage across the Taff—or certainly the maintenance costs—could amount to £150 million a year according to some of the more pessimistic views. If that is the case, one could say that the £150 million would be better spent in attracting more business to Cardiff without a barrage but possibly with better transport systems or other similar ideas.
The present barrage proposal might not necessarily be essential for the redevelopment of Cardiff bay, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). Perhaps a little mud will not put people off investing in the area and that money could still flow in.
There is also a strong environmental factor. The Government agency—the Cardiff Bay development corporation—may be the first body to destroy a site of special scientific interest. That is worth serious consideration. The main objections at the moment involve

groundwater. The report by Hydrotechnica has not been available long enough to receive proper consideration. That is an important point because there are other reports in the pipeline which have not yet been published but without which the House cannot give proper consideration to the background of scientific information which could perhaps make us more able to take objective decisions.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because at the beginning of his speech he made some rather outrageous remarks about the dangers of flooding. We must be very careful and responsible in the House about the way in which we deal with such issues. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support what he said, I hope that he will give us the benefit of it. While doing so perhaps he will tell us whether in raising such a range of objections he is speaking for his party. Some of his colleagues have previously been helpful and supportive of the Bill and we thought that the one or two people in Grangetown who came out against the barrage during the local elections were an aberration among the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, they did very badly as a result of coming out against the barrage at that time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten us.

Mr. Livsey: I shall certainly not give a diatribe about the internal politics of Cardiff but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a 65 in. rainfall in the Brecon Beacons which might have some impact on flooding around Cardiff bay. That is evidence which one ignores at one's peril.
The bases of sewers in the Cardiff bay area is a serious issue. The fact that large parts of Cardiff were built on made ground in the Grangetown and Riverside area makes analysis difficult and, for the purposes of modelling, very difficult. Some residents are worried that at present there does not appear to be allowance for compensation for damage to property in areas outside the designated area. Many elderly people living in such areas may have to take precautionary measures such as putting damp courses in their houses.
Issues surrounding the Hydrotechnica report need careful analysis. The report has so far failed to produce a model that represents the historical behaviour in terms of time variant water level movement and flows. It seems that most of Hydrotechnica's efforts have been directed towards solving the computer problems that it has met in the modelling. That gives rise to some fears about the report.
One factor causing unease at present and which the Secretary of State must take into account is that, from evidence given to it, the Select Committee stressed in its recommendations that a year was the minimum time necessary to study the impact of a one-year cycle of groundwater. Unfortunately, despite the statements made to the Select Committee and subsequently to the various meetings held by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and others, the attempts during the 12-month period to collect data have been half hearted. From the evidence, it appears that sewer flow data are available only for a very short period, from February 1991 to early April. That is a total of about five weeks out of a possible 52 recommended for the study. Similarly, the approach to understanding the made ground was tardy and data were collected for only


one month in July 1991. For those reasons, one must have reservations about whether we have sufficient data to make an objective judgment on the Cardiff bay barrage.
Water quality and pollution are also serious worries in terms of the Taff and of the Ely. The probability of algae blooms occurring and the possibility of that creating a health hazard must be taken into account. The National Rivers Authority's computer model suggests that there will be a bad algal problem—possibly the worst in Britain—in the inland water behind the barrage. That could preclude water sports and could create a serious midge problem and it may be necessary to deploy anti-midge chemicals to control the problem.
I am naturally concerned about the efficacy of the fish passes on the Taff. Salmon, of course, find it difficult to arrive in one piece after going up the valleys because they face many hazards there. None the less, it would be a good idea to give them a chance. The fish pass is an important aspect and it must be properly designed. I trust that the NRA is studying the matter carefully. The provisions concerning bird life in the bay area have had close analysis and do not seem to be entirely adequate.
It would be better to debate the Bill next year because a debate then would be better informed. The idea of the barrage could be good, but we must be certain that all safeguards are in place. It would be better to have a proper, informed debate when all the reports are on the table, when we can all read those reports and when we can come to some conclusions as a result.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) reassured our hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that those of us who represent Cardiff constituencies fully supported the redevelopment of Cardiff. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that I wish Cardiff city council and the development corporation well in their attempts to rejuvenate Cardiff and to provide employment and housing in the derelict area of Cardiff. There is no question of reservations on our part about the necessity of the work being done for the redevelopment of Cardiff.
However, we have some reservations—I have three—about the way in which the work is being conducted. First, I am sad that a development corporation is in place. I would far rather that the decisions were taken by people who were accountable to the public under a proper system of democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) made clear his reservations about the way in which the corporation works.
Secondly, I have reservations about the fact that the development corporation seems to have an endless pit from which to draw resources. We know that money is being splashed about in a variety of ways. I do not begrudge Cardiff that expenditure, but I begrudge the fact that my constituency is denied such largesse, and does not have a fair dip in the pool.
Thirdly, I regret the way in which the Welsh Office's spending priorities have been distorted by its fanaticism about putting all the resources into south Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd mentioned the way in which Welsh Office expenditure on the national health service had been twisted. I am conscious of the way in which transport expenditure has been skewed towards

South Glamorgan. I do not begrudge South Glamorgan receiving that money, but I begrudge the fact that South Glamorgan is receiving the money whereas my county of Mid Glamorgan is not. Over the past four or five years, on the basis of per capita comparisons, Mid Glamorgan has done badly.
With the rundown of basic industries in Mid Glamorgan, we need a proper transport system and a proper infrastructure. We are being doubly disadvantaged by being denied access to reasonable investment in transport and by having to compete with South Glamorgan, which has all the advantages in terms of investment. That makes life difficult for us in the valley communities.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill replaces the private Bill which fell in the previous Session. He rather unkindly implied that there was something undemocratic about the defeat of the private Bill.

Mr. David Hunt: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davies: I am glad to see the Secretary of State shaking his head. I presume that he is denying that he implied that there was anything undemocratic. However, he said on two or three occasions that the private Bill was killed off by a minority—

Mr. Hunt: Blocked.

Mr. Davies: Blocked. The implication is that we somehow subverted the democratic process. I am glad that the Secretary of State is not making that allegation. What point was he trying to make when he emhasised that a "minority" had stopped the Bill proceeding through the House?

Mr. Hunt: I was objecting to the fact that Opposition Members, who were comparatively few in number, had used the democratic process to block the Bill.

Mr. Davies: I fail to see what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The defeat of the private Bill showed that the Secretary of State carries little clout in the Cabinet. We all know that he tried diligently to get Conservative Members to be present that night so that the Bill would go through. We all know that a three-line Whip operated—[HON MEMBERS: "It did not."] The evidence is in the report of the debate on that April night. I will not rehearse the arguments now.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), who was so pious in his condemnation of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, could not manage to get his act together and vote in a crucial Division. The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler), who challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), could not be bothered to vote on that night. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) could not be bothered to vote. Before the Secretary of State throws around allegations about minorities, he should ask where his hon. Friends were that night when the Government's failure to deliver a majority caused the Bill to be defeated.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I will give way, although I want to make progress because other hon. Friends wish to speak.

Mr. Rogers: I hope that my hon. Friend will carry on.

Mr. Davies: The private Bill procedure is inadequate. I am glad that the Secretary of State acknowledged that we used the democratic process. There can be no criticism of us for that. It was abundantly clear from the time when the Bill was introduced that several of us had deep-rooted objections. It was proper for us to use the procedures of the House to achieve the outcome that we wanted.
The Secretary of State mentioned that the process will be reviewed. I hope that the lesson of the Cardiff bay barrage does not result in a new system which is equally at fault being imposed on us. There is a grave danger that a system will be introduced under which private Bills—and we all understand the purpose of private Bills and the fact that they serve a private financial interest—will be pushed through the House at the behest of the Government. That should concern us all, regardless of where we stand in the debate on the Cardiff bay barrage.
We know that, over the years, the Government have subverted the private Bill procedure for their own purposes. One valid parallel with today's proceedings is the great battle—if I can use that expression—that took place in the previous Parliament on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, which was presented to Parliament in 1985. Between 1985 and 1988, that Bill was subject to fierce rearguard action by hon. Members who represent the mining group and those of us who are in the conservation lobby. The Bill was designed to destroy a site of special scientific interest on the Orwell estuary known as the Fagbury flats, which were home to about 15,000 waders. It was an extremely important international site for wildlife.
The Felixstowe Docks and Railway Company presented the Bill to override the protection given to the SSSI by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It wanted to extend the docks up the Orwell, which would destroy that site. The Secretary of State of the time approved the scheme—we did not have to have an environmental impact assessment—on the basis of his assertion that the benefits to the national economy outweighed the damage to an internationally important wildlife site. That is precisely the same argument as was put to us by the Secretary of State today.
The Felixstowe docks were subject to certain exemptions at the time of the Bill. They were not subject to the normal restrictive practices that operated in the docks and it was not part of the national dock labour scheme—[Interruption.] I shall explain the importance of that to the Secretary of State in a moment. Those exemptions gave temporary advantages to the docks. However, the judgment of the then Secretary of State was based on the need to allow those docks to expand to benefit from those advantages.
The Government then removed the advantages that the Felixstowe docks once had. They got rid of the national dock labour scheme and, shortly after the Bill was enacted, the docks started to lose their commercial advantage. By the time the SSSI was destroyed, Felixstowe had lost all such advantages. What happened? the port started to lose trade and all the major operators transferred their services from Felixstowe. More than 100 jobs at the port were lost.
The Bill destroyed an SSSI that was an internationally important wildlife site. That private Bill had been whipped through on the champagne vote when—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was not in the House at the time of those votes, so I do not know what he is laughing about. I can assure him that champagne

parties were held across the road from the Chamber at 8 o'clock in the morning to ensure that his colleagues voted on Report.
The Government subverted the democratic process in the 1980s and today's Bill is a direct parallel of their previous behaviour. The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways and he must accept the lessons from the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-Wales): I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the dock labour scheme so effectively sabotaged all the other ports in the country—as my colleagues and I consistently said—that Felixstowe derived immense benefit from being out of it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, once that scheme was abolished in other ports, Felixstowe lost its unique advantage.

Mr. Davies: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman if that is the best that he can make of the argument. The hon. Gentleman knows that the rationale behind that Bill was to capitalise on the special advantages Felixstowe gained because it was outwith the national dock labour scheme. Of course, when the Government abolished that scheme, Felixstowe lost that advantage, but by that time the damage had been done. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has mentioned the parallels with Felixstowe. Does he agree with me that one can also detect the hand of Associated British Ports in the Bill before us? Part of the objection to the Cardiff bay barrage development is the huge financial benefits that Associated British Ports, a private company, will receive as a result of the expenditure of an enormous amount of public money. Besides being a large contributor to the Conservative party, that company has had its hand in many tills. Its chairman, a former Secretary of State for Wales, set the ball rolling some years ago so that the company could maximise its land holdings in the city of Cardiff to the detriment of the residents.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is a far better student than I of the intricacies of Associated British Ports and and his intervention establishes the case beyond doubt.
The Secretary of State has claimed that a balance must be struck between the economic gains to be had from any proposed development and the environmental losses. I accept that; it is at the heart of the debate about Cardiff bay. We must decide whether we attach greater importance to the perceived economic gains or to the need to protect a fragile environment. It is a pity that the case must be determined by assertion. The Secretary of State has asserted that the economic case outweighs the environmental case. However, if we are to benefit from past four years' debates on Cardiff bay and avoid this sort of wrangle in the future, we must have a mechanism to provide a better evaluation of the relative merits of economic gain as opposed to environmental loss. It is a pity that we have not developed that mechanism.
We no longer have a national strategy for the protection of our environment. Following the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, there was a bipartisan agreement on the way in which our environment should be protected. In the past two years, however, that agreement has been reneged on by the Government. They cynically destroyed


that agreement when they decided that the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's advisory body, was to be broken up and put under political control.
However, the Secretary of State has got the tiger by the tail. He set up the Countryside Council for Wales, which was charged with the responsibility of giving him objective scientific advice, but now that he sees fit not to accept that objective scientific advice, he sets it to one side. Earlier, I challenged the Secretary of State to justify that act. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the importance of his decision. He does not appreciate that he has set a precedent by setting aside the objective scientific guidance provided by the Countryside Council for Wales.
It is important to put on record the view of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It wrote to the Secretary of State after he had overridden the advice of the Countryside Council and it set out its objections. The Secretary of State announced his decision about the special protection area at Cardiff bay on 1 November in a press release and the RSPB sent a letter in response which stated:
First, your letter dwells on the relative number of birds occurring in Cardiff Bay compared to the Severn as a whole, and on the relative areas involved. Estuarine ecosystems, such as those making up the Severn are not discrete and separate: each component part is integral to the interest of the whole. Birds 'displaced' by destruction of the Taff/Ely estuary cannot simply be accommodated elsewhere in the Severn: food supply and competition factors would prevent this…It was the view put formally to your Department by NCC in March 1990 when they advised that Cardiff Bay was (and is) an integral part of the area which should be designated as SPA. A view subsequently confirmed by the JnCC … Secondly, the Leybucht judgment is cited. We consider that the way it is prayed in aid of this decision subverts the intent of the Directive, which is to safeguard a sufficiency of sites (SPA's) so as to maintain bird numbers. It is not tenable to react by seeking to justify refusal to designate sites or parts of sites by changing the accepted scientific approach to site selection, simply because they are controversial. The RSPB fears that this attitude will blight conservation action on a significant part of the UK's internationally important wildlife resources in future.
It is worth spending a moment to consider the logic of the Secretary of State's decision. More than 10 years ago Cardiff bay was selected as a part of the generally important Severn estuary that deserved special protection due to its over-wintering wildlife. On that basis it was designated an SSSI. In 1990, the Government's advisers recommended that, not only should Cardiff bay be protected but, due to its general importance, the whole of the Severn estuary should be included as a special protection area.
Now, the Secretary of State has turned logic on its head. He has said that the estuary as a whole will be an SPA, but the specific district that merited special protection 10 or 12 years ago should be excluded from the overall protection offered the estuary. If that decision is not challenged in the courts, I do not know what will be. The Secretary of State has done himself a disservice. It would have been better if he had accepted the case for designation, but said that he still believed that the economic case was overwhelming and, on that basis, the Government were prepared to make an environmental sacrifice. However, the Secretary of State seems to be trying to cheat on the rules.
I shall now consider the latest development at a European level to standardise protection. At the Hague, between 19 and 21 November, there was a conference on

European coastal conservation. The Government were represented at the conference and were signatories to its three major conclusions. The first stated:
that there is an urgent need to adopt and implement a European strategy for integrated planning and management of all European coastal zones based on the principles of sustainability and sound ecological and environmental practice".
There can be no conceivable circumstances in which the development proposed for Cardiff bay meets any of those criteria.
The conclusions continue:
that conservation and sustainable use of coastal zones is one of the fundamental aspects of such a strategy and that accordingly high priority should be given to specific action to implement this".
The conference was saying that a high priority should be given to designating areas deserving of protection—in complete contradiction to the decision announced 20 days before by the Secretary of State for Wales.
The third conclusion was:
that this strategy should he applied to the coast as a single coherent system including the coastal waters and estuaries and the land directly or indirectly influenced by and influencing the coastal zone".
That argument, that the strategy should apply to a single coherent system, lies at the heart of the matter. All the conservation organisations that have opposed the measure have done so on the basis that we cannot set aside and sacrifice a specific district and expect that to have no impact on the greater whole.
The British Government attended that conference and were signatories to its conclusions, as were 20 or 30 of their European partners, organisations including the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission. It is difficult to conceive of a more bizarre occurrence. Last week, the Government were putting their name to a declaration that enshrined the principle of the protection of our fragile eco-systems; today—a week later—they present a Bill to the House that is at complete variance with the principles to which they put their name a week earlier.
We need a clear and consistent policy from the Government showing their approach to the protection of our fragile ecosystems if we are not to have increasing conflict between development groups and conservation pressures. I do not believe that debates such as this provide the proper way to reconcile such conflicts, which we must take out of the political arena. One week a certain pressure might be given priority and the next week another one could be given priority. We need a consistent set of policies to protect the environment and ensure that beleaguered communities such as mine in the valleys and those in Cardiff know precisely how they can develop. The Government would do us all—certainly the electors of Cardiff—a great favour if they were to remove the uncertainty about such developments and lay before the House a system for reconciling the conflicts.
If there is one lesson to be learnt from the five Bills presented on the development of the Cardiff bay barrage it is that there are contradictory pressures and almost overwhelming forces on both sides of the argument. Political debates such as this are not the proper way to resolve those conflicts.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I fear that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) allowed his fertile imagination to run away with him and to ignore the facts. He hurled out charges that my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) and I had not had the courtesy to stay to vote in all the Divisions when we last debated the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. Since he made that charge, I have looked at the records and can assure him of my presence at each of the Divisions at 9.13 pm, 9.29 pm, 10 pm, 12.52 am and 4.11 am. The hon. Gentleman may have missed the fact that for three of those Divisions I acted as a teller.

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I have a copy of the Division list now; I made a mistake and I offer my unreserved apologies. He was recorded as a teller. I should have known better and checked the voting list. As a teller, he did not vote, and I offer him my apologies.

Mr. Jones: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and normal relations are restored. I look forward to his future career as Chief Whip of the Labour party.
I shall make my contribution fairly brief because I have a sense of deja vu, or, put more simply, here we go again. Although I do not speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), who, because of other parliamentary pressures, greatly regrets that he cannot be here, I am sure that I echo his thoughts when I say that the sense of "here we go again" is very much abroad in Cardiff.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) that now is the wrong time to be debating the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is certainly not too early to be doing so. In Cardiff I am frequently asked why the measure is not yet on the statute book after so much time has been spent on it. I say that as strongly as possible. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor did not wish to indulge in a diatribe on the politics of Cardiff because that city is, I think, foreign to him. Were he to spend more time in Cardiff, he would realise the importance that many of its citizens attach to the rapid progress of this and many other important measures.

Mr. Livsey: I said that in the context of the fact that not all the reports are out, which means that we cannot have an objective analysis of the issue. In that context, the debate is too early. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will accept that I know much about Cardiff as my grandfather lived there for 50 years.

Mr. Jones: I fear that, like many a good Liberal, the hon. Gentleman is 50 years out of date.
The people of Cardiff want the measure to progress, and the hon. Gentleman would be at variance with that sentiment were he to say otherwise. There is great frustration among the people that a handful—on looking at the voting list I found that it was at most 29—of hon. Members sought to thwart the progress of the previous Bill. That handful dwindled between 9.13 pm and 9.29 pm. The number continued to drop until by the last Division only eight Members were left in the No Lobby, trying to stop the measure progressing for the capital city of Wales.

Mr. Ron Davies: That is correct. But will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the failure of the promoters of the Bill to find 100 Members to close the debate led to the downfall of the measure?

Mr. Jones: I suggest that a moral and intellectual bankruptcy on the hon. Gentleman's side failed to produce any impressive vote against the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. Although we did not make sufficient progress that night on mere technicalities, there was a clear, even at times a large, majority in favour of the Bill. I accept that we did not have enough Members to satisfy the rules of the House. That is why the proponents of the measure were at the greater disadvantage. I do not count it as a great loss to be defeated by a mere eight.

Mr. Michael: In the spirit of amity in the Chamber tonight, does the hon. Gentleman accept that one thing on which we can all agree is that the private Bill system caused disadvantage to all, whether for or against the barrage? Does he agree that the procedure created many of the disagreements and problems that underlay the arguments which persisted throughout the process until that date?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we have moved on and the measure is now a Government Bill. We have the problems of the private Bill behind us and I hope that we can make progress. On behalf of my city and as representative for Cardiff, North, I inform the House that there is great regret that so much has been done which will have to be done again. We are having only our first debate on the Bill—the Second Reading debate—tonight.
The delays which have come to pass so far will pale into insignificance when eventually we can look back on the successful creation of the barrage in Cardiff and the regeneration of the area. It is no short project. It will take a long time to come to pass. The time that we have wasted and the hours that we have spent through the nights will pale into insignificance when it has all happened.
However, I would be failing in my duty if I did not tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is continuing anxiety about a further point. It is feared that the general election will intervene to frustrate progress on the Cardiff bay barrage. The Opposition have tabled an amendment described as a reasoned amendment which refers to groundwater, consultation and water quality. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) spoke at great length about the various points in his reasoned amendment, including his reservations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be the arbiter in matters of water quality. He said that he would prefer an independent arbiter. Yet on the whole the hon. Gentleman's speech was lightweight. He made points which essentially were not Second Reading points but points which deserve to be properly considered in Committee. I am sure that they will be considered in Committee.
I was amazed that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who occupies the position of shadow Secretary of State for Wales, could waffle on for so long saying nothing. Even when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether he supported the central principle in the Bill, and whether he was in favour of the Cardiff bay barrage, he was never prepared to come off the fence and answer the question. He refused to say. He waffled and simply would not come to the point. That was not


untypical of his hon. Friends. Perhaps with more credence, they advanced their reservations about parts of the Bill. But in their turn they avoided the central principle of the Bill.
Surely the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside and other Opposition Members cannot be blind to the advantages that the Cardiff bay barrage will bring and the comparative disadvantages that would occur if the barrage was not built. Opposition Members must have researched the matter, but if they have not I remind them that in January 1990 a definitive planning update and economic appraisal statement was published by a group of development consultants. The consultants were Roger Tym and Partners, Conran Roche, Chesterton, and Peat Marwick McClintock. A major part of the study compared the likely outcome of the Cardiff Bay development corporation project with and without the barrage. The analysis of their conclusions is worth recalling.
The study said that there would be 24,850 permanent jobs with the barrage but only 12,700 jobs without it. There would be 24,000 man-years of construction jobs with the barrage but only 11,000 without it. It is calculated that the project will generate 4,774 new homes with the barrage but only 2,543 new homes without it.

Mr. Rogers: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. The views of the valley Members have been badly misrepresented in the debate. It has been suggested that we are selfish and that we do not want the development in Cardiff. That is untrue. I will vote to give Cardiff Bay development corporation any powers, but I do not see how the expenditure of about £400 million of public money will increase economic development in the Cardiff area. That is why I am interested in the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Perhaps he will disabuse me if I am ignorant of the advantages, but I understand that the barrage will create an area of water in which people can park boats and which people will be able to see from their houses. It will not add one square inch of land.
I am interested to know how the barrage will create more jobs. Is it expected that people will build factories in Cardiff if their workers can go out fishing at lunchtime or park their boats in the bay? I genuinely want to be converted.

Mr. Jones: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has not done any real research. He cannont have read any of the reports, such as the appraisal statement to which I have referred. How can anyone doubt that the Cardiff bay barrage and the freshwater lake that it would create would result in a total transformation and regeneration of the south Cardiff area? Without the barrage the area will be exactly as the advertisements to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred suggest. In various places we have seen the two pictures. One shows a stagnant landscape and the other shows a transformed, vibrant landscape. That transformed vibrancy would provide a real incentive to the development. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he studies the matter he will realise that that real incentive and that transformation will encourage people to build and expand their horizons. That is where all the extra growth will come from.
I reiterate the figures. I invite the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) to study the report produced by the development consultants. They estimate that there will

be 7,440 million sq ft of commercial space with the barrage but only 3,991 million sq ft without it and that the project will achieve £125·55 million of capital investment with the barrage but only £54·2 million without it.
Most interestingly, private sector leverage would occur at a ratio of 7:1 with the barrage but at only 3·5:1 without it. Those effects of transforming our waterside in Cardiff will be brought about only by the barrage. Compared with a barrage-less development, the barrage will bring 49 per cent. extra permanent jobs to Cardiff bay, 47 per cent. extra houses, 54 per cent. extra construction jobs, 46 per cent. extra commercial space and 50 per cent. extra private sector leverage on investment.

Dr. Kim Howells: I am intrigued by the extraordinary exactitude of the hon. Gentleman's figures. Why does the Conservative party appear to have a sexual obsession with damming and impounding flowing water, and why does it see stagnant water as a magnet that will attract jobs?

Mr. Jones: That was a fascinating selection of adjectives, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to go into sexual fetishes I refuse to follow him.
The research has been thorough and it has been carried out by development consultants and others. What it describes will come to pass; the essential catalyst will be the construction of the barrage. Obviously, construction jobs depend on that, but there will also be a transformation of the landscape. I invite Opposition Members quietly to reflect on the pictures in the advertisements of the Cardiff bay development corporation. They show the difference between stagnation and a vibrant landscape. The figures are not mine; they have been excellently researched by the consultants.

Mr. Morgan: I find the hon. Gentleman's touching faith in the veracity of the advertising breathtaking. He reminds me of the old lady who was once discovered wandering disconsolately around a supermarket, unsure of what to buy. The supermarket manager asked her why she did not know what to buy. She replied that her telly was broken, so she had seen no advertisements. The hon. Gentleman similarly seems to think that what advertisements say must be true. As a Member of Parliament, he should involve himself in discovering whether these advertisements mean anything and whether the consultants' reports mean anything.
We have all seen consultants' reports commissioned in our time. The consultants always ask the person paying for the reports what he wants them to say. If they are paid for saying that, they will say it, as they have done on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman must use his independent judgment to put a value on the consultants' figures, which have been dreamt up out of thin air.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman brought a smile to my face then. For a moment I detected a return to the old good humour that used to typify his contributions—he approached every fresh problem with a fresh joke.

Mr. Rogers: It was not a very good one.

Mr. Jones: I agree. It is just that I was pleased to hear a note of humour that has been absent for too long returning to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West should raise his sights above his cynicism. Certainly there is a place for cynicism and we should all be critical from time to time,


but this project has been so well researched that the time for cynicism has passed. Now is the time for a grand vision of what can be brought about in Cardiff bay. It can only come about if the barrage is built. The case for it deserves better than the cynical examination to which it has been subjected.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside refused to get off the fence. I can recall times when the hon. Gentleman voted with me in favour of the former Bill. We were almost appreciative of his support, which was offered in the true bipartisan spirit that has characterised this measure.
What has happened to the Leader of the Opposition, whose name is among those heading the amendment? I can remember him saying at the Dispatch Box that if other business had not kept him away he would have supported the Bill in the Lobbies.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Would my hon. Friend concede that the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) are following that excellent precept for leadership—"I must follow them because I am their leader"?

Mr. Jones: I cannot top that.
Where is the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition on this matter, important as it is to the capital city of Wales and to south Wales? The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside padded out his remarks with artificial indignation about the lord mayor of the capital city of Wales, councillor Jeffrey Sainsbury, having been appointed by my right hon. Friend as a director of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that that was wrong. I believe that it struck the right balance. There are positions for five local councillors on the development corporation—two from Cardiff, two from South Glamorgan and one from Vale of Glamorgan council—

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman will not help his right hon. Friend by pursuing that. I was chief whip of the city Labour group when the arrangements were made, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his suggestion is way out of order. Before the 1987 election an arrangement was made for the period following that election, so the suggestion of evenhandedness means that the decisions of the voters of Cardiff can be disregarded. That is not a sound argument, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman will draw his right hon. Friend into deeper waters by pursuing it.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman does not anticipate me very well; that is not the point that I was trying to make, which is that the Labour party sought after elections this year to take not just two, three or four but every one of the local council seats on the Cardiff Bay development corporation. How did that constitute a balanced approach? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the right contribution by maintaining the bipartisan approach, after taking advice from the council. He appointed one Conservative and one Labour member from the Cardiff city council while accepting the three Labour nominations from the other two councils.

Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech by the Secretary of State's predecessor, he will find that he

promised that five places would be set aside to be decided by the local authorities. Those local authorities contain the number of Labour members that serve on them due to the choice of the electorate. Again I suggest that this line of argument is unsound. The hon. Gentleman is not helping his right hon. Friend: he is making matters worse.

Mr. Jones: I do not accept that line of argument from the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend can choose to appoint whomsoever he thinks fit. Naturally, he listens to recommendations from the local councils, as he clearly did on this occasion, but he was absolutely right not to adopt all their suggestions.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside cited the example of Cardiff city centre's redevelopment around the St. David's centre. He mentioned that as an example of partnership. The person who should be given the credit as the father of the redevelopment of the city centre and of the fine St. David's centre was the late councillor Ron Watkiss. It was his place on the development corporation that fell vacant because of his untimely death before the local elections, and the appointment of the lord mayor followed on naturally from that. The advantages accruing from the redevelopment of the city centre, as cited by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, have been maintained by upholding councillor Watkiss' guiding spirit.

Mr. Michael: In that case, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the occupancy of the development corporation board place will change when the occupancy of the lord mayor's seat changes?

Mr. Jones: That will depend on what happens when the incumbent's term expires—as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.

Mr. Rogers: Should not the more important issue of the large salaries being paid to these local authority members be looked at? Does not the hon. Gentleman think it wrong in principle that elected councillors should be paid such salaries on these corporation bodies? These duties are merely an extension of their usual council duties. It is fair enough for the councillors to claim the normal allowances, but the hon. Gentleman's proposition would give them a biased view of what is in the interests of their citizens. If they are receiving thousands of pounds as members of Cardiff Bay development corporation, they are unlikely to look dispassionately at the interests of their wards. In all fairness, they would be under a great deal of pressure.

Mr. Jones: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's fear. I am confident that councillors such as John Philips, Lord Brookes and Paddy Kitson will do their duty as members of the corporation and as local councillors. I do not know the name of the other Labour nomination for the Vale of Glamorgan council, but I know of Jeff Sainsbury. The small salaries that they would be paid as directors of the corporation will not sway them. The work is not merely an extension of the work that they already do. They will be expected to put a great deal of time into their offices and deserve to be compensated.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside spoke about co-operation. Co-operation is not always evident in Cardiff. South Glamorgan council is seeking to usurp the planning authority that is normally the preserve of Cardiff city council. An example is the medicentre at the University Hospital of Wales. The Labour-controlled South Glamorgan council is trying to set up a commercial


development on a national health centre site and wants to be judge and jury in its own court. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside is not in his place. If he were, I would ask him to try to persuade South Glamorgan council away from the fait accompli that is threatened. Developments such as the medicentre should be situated in Cardiff bay. That would be better than further intensifying the use of the University Hospital of Wales site, with all the consequences for my constituents who live nearby.
I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) about the old BBC offices. He was right to remind us about the granting of planning permission. I apologise to no one for doing all that I can to frustrate office development on that site. The most obvious place for that development is Cardiff bay. However, I am happy for claims to be advanced by Merthyr, Pontypridd or Rhondda, or by anyone else. I shall continue to oppose over-intensive use of the site because that has grave traffic implications. Conservative councillors and I managed to persuade Labour-dominated Cardiff city council to turn down the scheme. The issue went to appeal and the Welsh Office found that as the site was already in office use it should remain in such use. I am sorry that the Secretary of State could not have reached a different conclusion.
South Glamorgan council offered to facilitate the development by providing a new junction at Caerphilly road and Manor way where there was potential for grid-locking traffic in north Cardiff into the constituency of Pontypridd and possibly Caerphilly. I agreed with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West when he suggested that future expansion of University College, Cardiff was unlikely to be able to proceed in the north of the city. That is right, and I rushed to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I should like to see a statutory green belt policy applied in the north of Cardiff, possibly using the line of the M4. Other areas south of the M4 should also be protected by a statutory green belt. South Glamorgan council persists in trying to develop green fields and should be stopped by a green belt policy.
It has been suggested that the Opposition amendment is merely a cosmetic exercise to cover the cracks in the Opposition. It is felt that Labour's approach to the Bill and to other matters will prove embarrassing at the election and could cost Labour votes in the marginals in south Wales. Where does Labour stand on this issue? Perhaps in his winding-up speech the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) will tell us.
It was thought that there was a bipartisan approach because the previous Bill was promoted not only by the development corporation but by Labour-controlled South Glamorgan council. It is perhaps germane to recall the words of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said, "If we can change our policies to win, we can change them back just as quickly afterwards." The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside previously supported the Bill, and the Leader of the Opposition has said that he would have supported it if he could have been here.
It will be interesting to see how Opposition Members vote on Second Reading. There is already a tendency in south Wales for the Opposition to be identified as Luddites. The leftward shift of Cardiff city council means that it is now moving to oppose the Bill, and I understand that the council will petition against it. It brought out a long-winded summons which concludes that the council will oppose the Bill. However, it is a summons for a

meeting of the council at 8 am. What opposition is the council trying to avoid by calling a meeting at that time? Suggestions of cosmetic exercises and Luddites could be very much to our political advantage. We could have another London factor leading to votes for Conservatives in south Wales.
I hope that we can put all that behind us. The Bill presents a tremendous opportunity for regeneration and transformation of the capital city of Wales. It will lead to many jobs and new homes and environmental improvements. Not least, it will improve the flood defences of our city. Cardiff grew dramatically in the last century because of coal, the railways and the port. That has been reversed since the 1920s because coal has not been exported in such quantity and the tendency has been for coal to be imported through the port of Cardiff. The Bill is an opportunity for a 21st century rebirth of our capital city through 25,000 new permanent jobs and new housing. A quarter of that housing will be social housing, which is necessary for that part of our capital city and for south Wales generally. The jobs will benefit not only Cardiff because their impact will be felt over a much wider area.
It has been overwhelmingly proved that the Bill will be of tremendous advantage to Cardiff. We must grasp the opportunity. All the problems are envisaged or are being tackled. Now is the time for vision, not cynicism. Let us put behind us all the time-wasting of the past.

Mr. Alun Michael: I was looking forward to saying what a good-tempered debate we were having, but then the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) was mischievous at the end of his speech. I am sure that, deep down under that mischievous surface, he appreciates that to support a reasoned amendment is to make a reasoned argument. He knows the enthusiasm with which I have supported the barrage project since its earliest days. He will not succeed in dividing the Labour party. He did not help his case by accusing Labour Members of being Luddites when all of us know the tremendous work that has been done by Labour members of local authorities to encourage inward investment and the redevelopment of south Wales. That is true not only of Cardiff city council and South Glamorgan county council but of other Labour-controlled county councils in south Wales.
When I spoke at the end of the debate on the private Bill, in response to the comments of a number of my hon. Friends, I pledged my support for the needs of the valleys. I appealed to my hon. Friends not to deny Cardiff the development associated with the barrage and said that in return I would support, with every possible effort, the redevelopment of the valleys. Despite the efforts to bring jobs into Cardiff, unemployment is very high there. Cardiff, Central is the constituency with the highest unemployment in Wales while Cardiff, South and Penarth and Cardiff, West are among the 10 constituencies with the most unemployment. There is a considerable unemployment problem to be overcome, and the regeneration of Cardiff is as essential as the regeneration of the valley communities represented by my hon. Friends.
Our amendment states three important principles. The first is that nothing should be done to weaken the protections available to any who might—I stress "might"—be adversely affected by groundwater. Secondly, it says


that the results of the public consultation on the Secretary of State's expert advice should be available to the House at this stage, but that the exercise is not yet finished. Thirdly, it says that there should be independent scrutiny involved in the event of any disagreement between the National Rivers Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation over water quality. Other issues have been touched on in the debate, but are not part of the reasoned amendment and I want to ensure that the House is not misled and that the voice of my constituents does not go unheard on these points.
I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to additional finance. We have been worried by the impact of the recession at a time when there is a danger that the development might be distorted because of the need to keep moving and to retain confidence.
Three issues have not yet been fully dealt with. The first is housing. The development corporation has given an undertaking that 25 per cent. of the housing constructed will be social housing for rent. That percentage does not include student housing, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), or sheltered housing for the elderly for sale. That undertaking is important because it gives the existing community an undertaking that its children and grandchildren will have the opportunity to stay in south Cardiff. In view of the housing crisis in Cardiff, that contribution is not insignificant, although many of us would like the proportion to be even higher.
The second issue is training. People living in the area, especially young people, should be given the opportunity to have the training necessary to give them the chance to get the jobs that will result from the redevelopment. An important start has been made through work between the development corporation and the private sector employers; it is a fragile start, but it should be encouraged and placed at the forefront of people's minds as the development proceeds.
The third issue is relocation of existing businesses. That has been particularly difficult, because many businesses in older areas where the rental levels and the value of the land are low are having problems because of the impact of the recession. I hope that the Secretary of State will take to his Cabinet colleagues the experience of Cardiff and suggest that there be a change in compensation legislation. In France, for example, compensation for a public development is value plus 20 per cent., which allows an element of flexibility to encourage movement when that is in the greater public interest.
The civil servants in the Welsh Office, the people working in the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and those in local authorities who have helped firms to relocate without the loss of jobs have been in difficulties because of the system that we have. A change is necessary, and I hope that we learn from this. Because of existing legislation, the Secretary of State cannot be more flexible, but I hope that he will continue to be as positive as he can and will encourage his civil servants to be as positive as they can on all these issues.
Hon. Members have spoken about representation on the development corporation. The Labour party has always said that there is no need for a development corporation. We redeveloped the centre of Cardiff on a

cross-party basis and in co-operation with the private sector. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North was, like me, a member of the council during that important time. It is sad that the undertaking given by a previous Secretary of State, Lord Crickhowell—to provide five places to be decided by the local authorities—should be cast in doubt. I had not intended to touch on this matter today, but I must correct the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. It may have been a mistake by the then Secretary of State, but he gave a promise and I hope that, when the opportunity arises, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North will recognise the benefit that the councillor who was not accepted, councillor Geoff Mungham, would have brought to the operation of the development corporation. I am sure that it was not a personal decision, but it was a mistake.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) referred to the advertising budget. The main criticism of the Cardiff Bay development corporation is that it has not made its case locally as sensitively as it might have done, and has left it up to me, the county councils and others to do so. It is that rather than the spending of money in the area that is open to criticism.
My hon. Friend made a number of telling points. I understand his point about the location of the Welsh health common services authority. I would hardly not welcome jobs coming to my constituency, but I recognise the validity of his case. I remind him that I have given an undertaking that I will work hard in co-operation with him and other colleagues to regenerate the economy of the whole area.

Dr. Kim Howells: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's latter remarks, and I hope that the common services authority will flourish in the bay and will bring more employment to the area. However, my observations were directed at the way in which the decision was arrived at by, among other people, the Welsh Office.

Mr. Michael: I accept the validity of my hon. Friend's point, which he made well.
My hon. Friend also referred to Techniquest. I had the pleasure the other week of visiting the science centre in Toronto and seeing examples of equipment from Techniquest. I saw its logo used in that centre. The Secretary of State has taken an interest in this. It is now moving into such sectors as chemistry, in which it is difficult to arouse public interest. I hope that it will be encouraged to develop naturally, in the way and the character that it assumed when it was developing under the innovative approach of Professor Beetlestone and his colleagues.
I am sure that we want the project to be ambitious and a world leader and that everyone would unite in that aspiration. The problem is that we need the cash to develop the project, and that is where the relevance of the barrage comes into the equation in terms of development in south Cardiff.
I agree also with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd on the importance of the centre for the performing arts. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has a love of opera, might agree with that, as long as the benefit of Welsh National Opera is retained and developed in south Wales and is of benefit to all parts of Wales and not only of the capital. It is important, of course, that other performing arts are involved.
When we consider the leverage figures on the options, with or without the barrage, there can be no doubt of the importance of the barrage, even if that is discounted by a percentage. Let us say that the leverage of private sector investment is 3·5:1 without the barrage and 7:1 with it. There would be 12,700 net jobs without the barrage and 24,850 with it. There would be a net value of minus £166 million without the barrage and a positive net value of £301 million with it. These figures are telling. With the barrage, there is an opportunity to secure the major investment, the major draw of jobs to the area and the major positive changes in the environment, in housing and in benefit to my constituents that we want to see. I recognise now that my hon. Friends who represent valley constituencies do not wish to obstruct those opportunities, although there have been occasions in the past when I have had momentary doubts about that. However, those times have past.
As the percentage of the development has been discussed, it is surely right to refer to the courage that has been shown by those who have supported it from the beginning. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North mentioned councillor Ron Watkiss. I have spoken on previous occasions about the involvement of councillor John Reynolds, to whom I pay tribute. It is sad that neither of those cross-party colleagues is present to see their efforts come to fruition.
I pay tribute also to the courage of South Glamorgan county council in creating a flagship at the heart of the development in south Wales. It is interesting that the county council can claim to have saved nearly £2·5 million already as a result of the development in south Cardiff. As it disposed of the former county headquarters to an inward investor, about 500 jobs have come to the city. Basically, and more importantly, the county council showed leadership and confidence in going forward into the development. As a result, others—especially in the private sector—shared the authority's confidence and went in behind it.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) made a lightweight contribution to the debate. I asked him to substantiate his outrageous and unsupported suggestion that houses would be in danger of being flooded, and he failed to do so. I asked him to tell us whether he was speaking for his party, and he failed to do so. A common misapprehension of those who have not gone into these matters seriously is that the construction of a physical barrage across Cardiff bay will prevent flow out of the rivers. The barrage will, of course, be fitted with sluices to pass river flow when tide levels permit. It is not always realised that flow out of the rivers does not occur at high tides in present circumstances due to the presence of the mass of tidal water in the Bristol channel.
It is clear, therefore—this was not in dispute when these issues were considered by the Select Committee—that the main beneficial effect of the barrage will be in excluding the high tide levels in the bay and the rivers. The barrage has a generally neutral effect on levels due to high river discharges. There is, however, a considerable question mark over the flood levels and what will be needed to deal with them in the event of global warming and the continuing rise of sea levels. In such circumstances we might thank our lucky stars for the existence of the

barrage, which would provide protection. Alternative investment would have to be massive to protect Cardiff from the danger of flooding.
During the Select Committee's deliberations the danger of groundwater was at issue, not flooding. When I questioned the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor about that, he told the House that 65 in of rain falls in the Brecon Beacons. That was less than helpful. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not researched the danger of groundwater before coming to the Chamber to pontificate about it. It is clear also that he does not understand flooding issues generally.
I have been concerned from the beginning whether the building of the barrage will give my constituents a better chance of a job, will increase their chance of a decent home, will improve their environment and will offer training opportunities. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the drawbacks. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I have always considered groundwater to be of crucial importance. I am not sure whether it is wise to use expressions such as "urban squalor" when they are not justified by scientific evidence. I recognise that that was a quote from one of the individuals on whom the campaigners against the barrage have placed great store. It is important to scrutinise all the evidence, and equally it is important not to worry people living in areas of Cardiff where there is no threat of a rise in groundwater. For that reason, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd was wise not to enter into the groundwater argument.
That is why I sought the independent advice of Glyn Jones—now Professor Glyn Jones—and provided him with a brief, which was to be as searching and critical as possible in his study, the results of which would be made public, irrespective of whether they damaged the case for the barrage. The brief was provided also on the condition that the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and Hydrotechnica subsequently, would make available all reports and raw data required by him in preparing his advice to me.
In his original report, Professor Glyn Jones stated that the consultants had built in a generous safety factor that had improved confidence in the calculations used for predictive purposes. He added that people living in the affected area could be considerably more assured than had previously been possible about the likely effect of the proposed barrage on groundwater conditions. Since then we have had the Hydrotechnica report, on which opponents placed such considerable emphasis.
There are a couple of factors that Professor Glyn Jones as an independent adviser has drawn to my attention. They should be considered in addition to the reassurance that has already come from Hydrotechnica, as well as from Professor Lloyd, who scrutinised the report for Cardiff city council. This will be prior to the detailed scrutiny that the Secretary of State's adviser will be undertaking. It will be important for us to read his findings and I regret that they are not before us for the debate.
Professor Glyn Jones says, first, that the terms of reference were agreed between the expert technical advisers to the corporation and the petitioners. Secondly, he observes that Hydrotechnica was free to include such work as it considered necessary over as large an area as it deemed appropriate. In short, the terms of reference were to be interpreted as guidelines and not as a straitjacket.
In the time available, I cannot go into the detail of Professor Glyn Jones's comments. I am merely saying that it is reassuring to those of us who have been looking forward to the Hydrotechnica results to give us a sound foundation on which to pass judgment on the groundwater issue. He tells me that the report showed the geological succession identified from previous investigations was confirmed as being fundamentally correct. He considers that the greatest advance has been made in the additional work on made ground. It is significant that about one third of the boreholes drilled into the made ground were dry and that the others showed only a thin saturated zone. All the evidence points to rapid vertical recharge and equally rapid horizontal drainage.
It was Professor Glyn Jones's conclusions that Hydrotechnica had fulfilled the requirements of the agreed terms of reference without conceding any independence of action, that it had confirmed the general understanding of the hydrogeology of the area that was presented in previous works and added considerably to knowledge of the response of the made ground to natural and artificial inputs, that it had identified and quantified all but a few of the separate elements that make up the complex integrated system and demonstrated a functional water balance of flow through this system in support of its conceptual version of the model. The professor said:
One can be satisfied that in their numerical model the consultants have incorporated as much relevant information as is practicable, and that this model provides as reasonable a simulation of the prevailing conditions as is likely to he obtained.
He concluded:
In their most probable version, the predicted rises in the critical areas of less than 0·1 metre should cause no concern, and are less than those predicted in the WEP report. Inclusion of the extreme cases as a safety factor results in no significant difference, except for a few identifiable localities where land drainage works would be advisable to allay any concern among residents.
That is an extremely important reassurance, and when we have the observations of the Secretary of State's adviser, it should help to allay the considerable fears that were aroused during the debates on the Bill.
As to environmental matters and sites of special scientific interest, I believe that a mistake was made in characterising the Leybucht bay case as being relevant to Cardiff bay, because it dealt with construction works in a special protection area already designated under the EEC birds directive, which establishes a strict regime of development and control within such areas.
In the case of other areas, such as Cardiff bay and the Severn estuary—which together may be being considered for designation as special protection areas—the Leybucht judgment made it clear that member states have a discretion to take various factors into account, including economic considerations of benefit to local people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) emphasised, the Leybucht finding was important, but it is not relevant to the Cardiff bay argument.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly for his support today and for recognising that arguments must be balanced. I acknowledge his great concern about the impact of development on estuaries and on wildlife generally. It is a question of disagreeing over the analysis of the impact of developing the bay area. In

my view, from all the evidence I have seen, the Secretary of State was right not to include Cardiff bay in the Severn estuary for European designation.
The precedent argument, made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in particular, does not in itself make a strong case, for there was no real interest in protection prior to the barrage development. Secondly, as to the SSSI defence, I studied the paperwork that was involved at the time of the SSSI designation, and discovered that there was no consultation with local authorities. There was simply an instant decision. There was no process of debate of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly rightly said there ought to be when such matters are being discussed.
It is sad that the Cardiff bay development has become a political football between warring factions. I am at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly in his assertion that there is a need to take such issues out of the party political scene, and out of the scene as between those who want to see development and those who value environmental protection.
The Opposition's amendment asks the House to acknowledge that the existing Secretary of State for Wales, or any future Secretary of State, should not have the power to weaken the protection afforded to anyone who might —and I emphasise "might"—be affected detrimentally by any rise in groundwater. That reassurance should not be taken away from people.
We also regret that we do not know the outcome of the consultation or the conclusions of the Secretary of State's adviser and his comments on the work undertaken by Hydrotechnica. Reference has been made to the lack of public debate. Perhaps that is due to fears of a Select Committee among those who would have to give evidence. One of the Clerks told me that lawyers tend to regard the members of Select Committees as remote gods to be propitiated rather than as right hon. and hon. Members requiring to be persuaded. Perhaps it is that which has made Hydrotechnica and others reluctant to provide answers that would be helpful to the public.
As for water quality, it is important that there should be independent verification of water standards. The National Rivers Authority is unsatisfactory, and the Cardiff Bay development corporation is unaccountable and is the creature of the Secretary of State. There should be independent verification of water quality to guide the Secretary of State, or to adjudicate. The Secretary of State said that those four issues could be addressed. Let him tell the House that they will be addressed by the House, because they are all important in enabling us to unite in supporting this important development for south Cardiff.

Mr. Paul Murphy: This afternoon's short debate has highlighted a number of issues regarding the development of Cardiff, and in particular the Bill's major defects. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the Bill has been both hastily and badly drafted. It is also ill-thought-out, and as a consequence it is deeply flawed.
Despite the fact that there have been four private or public Bills relating to the Cardiff bay barrage area, the enormous controversy that the issue has aroused in Cardiff, the House, and the whole of Wales, and that, quite properly, feelings have run high on both sides of the


argument, the Bill is so sloppy and so obviously the work of the dead hand of the Treasury that it is a legislative clanger.
The Bill provides insufficient and inadequate safeguards against groundwater flooding; fails to ensure proper water quality; allows the Secretary of State despite his earlier remarks—to overrule proper and necessasry protection against the risk of flooding; and gives only the most cursory attention to public consultation with those Cardiff residents who will be most affected. Given everything that has occurred over the past few months and years, the Bill is so inept and clumsy that I wonder about the judgment and common sense of all those who have been involved in the bay project or in the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly, for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) commented that the role played by the corporation in the past few months has been less than exemplary. Perhaps that is inevitable, because the corporation is accountable to no one. If it had been, the latest and most disastrous attempt at public consultation would not have put the whole project in some jeopardy, as it has done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to the development corporation's poor attempt—backed as it is by the Welsh Office—to secure some degree of public consultation on groundwater flooding and other matters over the past few months. My hon. Friend said that the corporation has a public relations budget of millions of pounds, but there is no doubt in my mind that it has fluffed it.
Even the local Conservative party made a better attempt at trying to persuade the people of Cardiff to become involved in some form of consultation in respect of the bay development. I have a copy of a leaflet that the Conservative party in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) published. It states:
Your Conservative MP Ian Grist wants to know your views on the proposed Cardiff Bay Barrage. If you want to comment please fill out the questionnaire on the back page." 
I am bound to say that that questionnaire is a little inept and certainly very partial. The reader is asked to tick one or more of the boxes shown against four statements. The first is,
I am in favour of the barrage.
The second is,
I am against the barrage.
The third is, "I don't know"; and the fourth is,
I am interested in joining the Conservative Party. Please send me further details.
At least that represents some sort of attempt to persuade the people of Cardiff to express their views on the groundwater problems.
As many of my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, the development of south Cardiff should have been placed in the hands of South Glamorgan and Cardiff city councils. St. David's hall is one of the finest concert halls not only in the United Kingdom, but in Europe. It was built because the city council—it does not matter whether it was Conservative or Labour—was responsible for the creation of the town centre and the St. David's centre. Similarly, county hall and Atlantic wharf were created by South Glamorgan county council.
Those two councils have provided excellent examples of the way in which local authorities, working together, and

working with the public and private sectors and the Welsh Office, were able to develop Cardiff as the Cardiff Bay development corporation will never be able to do. With all its money, its experts, its public relations budget and its colonels and generals, the corporation has failed to reassure residents about flooding, or to gain the confidence of the people of Cardiff.
Judging by what I have heard today, so many senior officers—colonels, brigadiers and generals—are now running various bodies in Wales that I suspect that, despite the best efforts of the Secretary of State for Defence, we shall have an extra regiment there. We could, perhaps, call it the Royal Quango Regiment of Wales; that would accord with the impression gained by many who are involved in public affairs in the Principality.
None of it comes as a surprise to me. For many years Cwmbran, which I represent, was run by a development corporation. Towards the end of its life, the corporation became increasingly out of touch with the people of the area. I do not want to wish that experience on the people of Cardiff. Labour has pledged to phase out the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and to return its functions and resources to our two local authorities in South Glamorgan. That does not mean that the south of Cardiff should not be developed; it means that the work will be carried out with much more sensitivity and accountability.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) rightly mentioned the industry that is being introduced to the area. We must not forget, however, that unemployment is worse in the Welsh capital than it is in many of the south Wales valleys—worse, certainly, than it is in my constituency. Butetown has a 22 per cent. unemployment rate. In Adamstown, 700 are out of work; in Grangetown, 650; in Splott, 600; and, in Rumney, over 1,200. In the whole of Cardiff, at least 15,000 are jobless and—that does not take into account the 30 fiddles that the Government have introduced into the unemployment figures over the past few years.
South Cardiff needs manufacturing jobs—well-paid, full-time jobs. It needs companies that are not afraid of trade unions. We need more than pretty, cosmetic jobs that fit the Cardiff bay image.
Housing should be another key priority. Thousands of people are lingering on Cardiff's housing waiting lists; there are hundreds of homeless in our capital. We need much more rented and low-cost housing in the Cardiff bay area than the Bill would allow. The 25 per cent. proportion about which the Secretary of State has boasted was included only because the corporation's Labour representatives were anxious to ensure a proper allocation of resources. The last thing that that part of Cardiff needs is more of the expensive yuppie houses that have been built in the London docklands, at the expense of many residents. However, the housing allocation conferred by the Bill simply is not good enough.
Notwithstanding what I have said, the essence of our reasoned amendment does not concern housing or manufacturing jobs, important though both those aspects are. It concerns the environment. A good deal of criticism has been thrown at our councils, but they would never have been responsible for the miscalculation and mismanagement that we observe not only in this fourth Bill, but in the actions of the development corporation.
We must provide the strongest possible safeguards against the historic problems of flooding in parts of Cardiff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has


pointed out, we must adopt a sensitive and sympathetic attitude to the birds and other wildlife in the bay; we must also pay close attention to water quality in the bay and the rivers that flow into it, not only now but later. All those principles underlie our reasoned—and reasonable—amendment.
Ultimately, of course, Cardiff will become a capital city that is both prosperous and the cultural, administrative and political centre of Wales—a city that is no longer divided between north and south—only if our economy is strong, our people are decently housed, our education and training policies are as good as any in Europe and our concern for the environment is genuine. I believe, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the people of Cardiff, and those of Wales as a whole, realise that all that will be possible only with the return of a Labour Government. I urge the House to vote for the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Let me begin by wishing the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) a very happy 43rd birthday. I can think of better ways of spending a birthday than defending the impossible, as the hon. Gentleman has just done from the Dispatch Box.
This has been an interesting debate. Interesting speeches have been made not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), but by the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
I am sure that we were all surprised when the hon. Member for Torfaen said that only a "cursory look" had been given to the Bill. Some of us had to sit here for thirteen and a half hours on 16 April to debate just two amendments to the private Bill; the House of Lords debated Second Reading of a previous Bill for two hours, and Third Reading for 50 minutes. A House of Lords Select Committee sat for 14 days, and a House of Commons Select Committee for 27. Since November 1989, a total of 25·5 hours has been spent in the House of Commons on this Bill and the private Bills that preceded it. I do not think that anyone else would describe that as cursory.

Mr. Murphy: I thank the Minister for his good wishes. His statistics are impressive, but, when I used the word "cursory", I was referring specifically to the lack of public consultation about groundwater flooding, rather than the number of hours devoted to the four Bills that we have been considering.

Mr. Bennett: A three-month consultation on the Hydrotechnica report is now taking place, and will conclude at the end of the year. There will be ample opportunity for the people of Cardiff to examine the entire consultation document—or summaries of it—and to take part in the consultation. We shall welcome their views, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage them to write to us. It is important that we hear all kinds of views.
The barrage scheme is one of the largest civil engineering projects in Europe. Only the channel tunnel project is larger. It would produce a freshwater lake of some 500 acres and more than eight miles of waterfront. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, it would produce between 25,000 and 30,000 new jobs in the area and regenerate a large part of one of our greatest capital cities. On those grounds alone, we are right to support the Bill.
I intend to deal briefly, in the short time available to me, with some of the points that were made during the debate by Opposition Members. I shall ensure that the major points raised by hon. Members that I am unable to answer now are dealt with in correspondence. Copies will be placed in the Library.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside referred to clause 21(2). He said that the Secretary of State will be able to weaken its provisions. We have no intention of weakening the powers provided for in clause 21 concerning groundwater protection. We intend to ensure that the protection that has been given by way of assurance will be given. The important point is that the House will have the opportunity, by means of affirmative resolution, to consider the regulations that are made.

Mr. Barry Jones: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I see that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside wants to intervene. I shall give way to him, though he was not prepared to give way to me during his speech.

Mr. Jones: Why should we believe the Under-Secretary of State and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales? They both said that they believed in the virtues of the poll tax. Now they denounce it.

Mr. Bennett: I do not intend to enter into a debate about that. However, the hon. Gentleman opposed the rates in July 1974 when he stood at this Dispatch Box. Now he wants to return to the rates. That is not a very productive road down which to travel. We have said at the Dispatch Box that there will be no weakening of the assurances given on groundwater.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I have only 19 minutes left in which to deal with detailed points and have already given way twice, but I shall give way again, first to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and then to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. They will be the last interventions that I shall allow.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister not accept that he cannot bind his successors? It may be his intention, as well as the intention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, not to exercise the power to weaken the groundwater protection, but it would be possible for their successors so to do, during the brief period between now and the general election, were there to be another Secretary of State for Wales. Does he agree that people need to be reassured? That was the point raised both by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and by me. We have sought the best possible reassurance for inclusion in the Bill.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that any Conservative Secretary of State for Wales will honour


the pledge that I have given. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government coming to office, I suggest that he should put pressure on whoever fills the position of Secretary of State for Wales. Both this and the next Conservative Government will guarantee the pledges that are given from this Dispatch Box. The important point about not including such a provision in the Bill is that circumstances may change. We may need to strengthen the groundwater protection, due to circumstances that cannot now be anticipated.

Mr. Morgan: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State understands why we are pressing him on this point. As soon as I read the clause I went to the Clerk's Department and asked whether it would be possible for the Secretary of State to bind himself in such a way that any amendment he might make to the subsection would lead to an increase in, not to a weakening of, the groundwater protection. I was told that it would be perfectly possible for him to do that. I have come to the conclusion that, for some strange reason, that has not been done. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred to the Treasury's "fingerprints"—to the fact that it had decided to reserve to itself the power either to strengthen or to weaken that provision. The Secretary of State could have bound himself to increase the groundwater protection, but he did not. As this is the fourth Bill that the House is considering, why on earth cannot the Government get the groundwater protection clause right?

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is impossible to guarantee that any scheme will be 100 per cent. right. It is absolutely right that we should have the power to strengthen, if necessary, the groundwater protection. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to follow the point. I repeat the assurance that I gave a few minutes ago—the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government have no intention of weakening that protection. The only reason for its exclusion from the Bill is that there may be a case in future for strengthening it. We cannot bind any future Administration. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that assurance.
It has also been argued that it is inappropriate to consider the Bill before a decision on groundwater has been reached. The parliamentary timetable will allow the Secretary of State's decision to be announced well before Royal Assent. The Select Committee that considered the private Bill requested this consultation and was content that the additional groundwater work and the proceedings on the private Bill should proceed in parallel. To wait until the consultation was over would have meant that a new Bill could not he introduced until next November. We have already had far too much delay over this important legislation for Cardiff.
The hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside and for Cardiff, West asked whether the Stoner report would be available to the Select Committee. That depends on the response to the consultation. It would be wrong to fix a date for my right hon. Friend's decision. He will make it only when he is satisfied that he has all the information and advice that he needs.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside also asked whether cash limits would be imposed on compensation. I am happy to reassure the House that there is no possibility of cash limits being imposed on the groundwater protection scheme compensation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about water quality, which is dealt with in clause 12. The Secretary of State can overrule the National Rivers Authority only when he considers its decision to be unreasonable. That is all that the Bill allows. He may not overrule the National Rivers Authority just because he would prefer a different decision. The conditions are clearly set out in clause 12. The courts would not allow my right hon. Friend to overrule a decision unless he was able to show that the National Rivers Authority had acted unreasonably.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that the Bill disregarded local authorities' powers in respect of impounded water. That is not true. The Bill removes none of the local authorities' powers—for example, their powers as environmental health authorities. The corporation has undertaken to provide to the city council any information that it needs.
In what, for him, was an unusually short speech after our experience in April, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked a number of questions. I shall not have time to answer all of them now. He said that there were seven. My right hon. Friend counted 21. I shall, however, deal with just two. The hon. Gentleman asked us whether we had taken fully into account the Leybucht judgment in coming to our decision on the Bill. We did. We referred to it specifically in the special protection area decision letter, written to Mr. Griffiths, which has been placed in the Library. We were aware that it could be open to judicial review. My right hon. Friend would not have made his decision if he had not believed it to be the correct one.
As for the 12-month readings of the boreholes—another question put to me by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West—we have made it clear that Hydrotechnica concluded that it had sufficient data to reach its conclusion. Hydrotechnica's report is out for consultation. Both we and Mr. Stoner will consider the responses and reach a view on whether that is so. We shall continue to monitor the boreholes.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly asked a number of interesting questions. He started with a question that has been asked on a number of occasions by valley Members: whether, in some way, the work that is being done in Cardiff bay will he at the expense of the valleys. It is nonsense to say that. May I remind the House of what is being done in the south Wales valleys. Resources are not being diverted. During the five years of the valleys initiative programme we expect to spend about £800 million. The achievements of the programme and future plans include 650 hectares of derelict land being cleared by the Welsh Development Agency, with 525 hectares planned to be reclaimed up to 1992. Nearly 7,000 homes have been improved under enveloping and block repair schemes. A whole range of new and exciting projects has been undertaken throughout the south Wales valleys during the past few years. Only last Friday both I and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) were at Ysbyty George Thomas for the opening of that hospital by Lord Tonypandy, half of the money for which came from my right hon. Friend's valleys initiative. One can say without fear of contradiction that, far from Cardiff grabbing money that should have gone to the valleys, the valleys have been getting a fair share of the initiative that my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) introduced in 1987.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister give way? He has mentioned me.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give way because I mentioned his name. The mention of his name was a compliment, not a criticism. I cannot believe that his attending the opening of a hospital with me last Friday is a matter of controversy, unless he wishes to deny that he shared my company. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have only 10 minutes left.

Mr. Rogers: I shall not criticise the Minister.

Mr. Bennett: Then I cannot resist giving way.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister carried out his duties last Friday in an exemplary fashion. That is rather strange but true. As I have said many times, hon. Members who represent valley constituencies feel no resentment about the development in Cardiff. The area desperately needs development. My objection as the Member of Parliament for Rhondda is that I do not see the value of spending hundreds of millions of pounds on creating a lake that does not add one square inch of land for industrial development. If I could be convinced otherwise, I would support the Bill. I support everything in the Bill except the construction of a barrage.

Mr. Bennett: That is interesting. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the most honest Opposition Member. He said that he opposes the central purpose of the Bill—he does not want the barrage. In a minute, he will support a Labour amendment that tries to pretend that Labour is in favour of the Bill and is concerned only about minor points. He has been honest and I am sorry that he is being misguided. He has posited much of his opposition on the argument that more money should go to the valleys and that the Bill is detrimental to the valleys.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned the private Bill and the Government Bill. The fact that we are considering a Government Bill in this Session is an example of the enormous clout that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in Cabinet. Far from him not having influence, we have the Bill because he and the Lord President determined that the people of Cardiff should have it.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the debate. He should have been here since 3.30 pm.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned birds. We carefully considered the Leybucht judgment, which made it clear that member states enjoy a margin of discretion in selecting the most suitable territories to be classified as special protection areas. It made it clear that after classification the only development that is permitted is development that relates to the public interest greater than the ecological interest covered by the directive—for example, the protection of human life from flooding.
Cardiff bay is located near the heart of the city in an area surrounded by poor environment and dereliction. We believe that there is a clear and urgent public interest in the much-needed regeneration of the area. In those circumstances, it would not have been right to place an

SPA on the Cardiff bay area. Under the Leybucht judgment, we have the right to ensure that such an SPA is not imposed.

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I said that I would not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I gave way to the hon. Member for Rhondda in a moment of weakness. I have given way about six times in the past 10 minutes.
In April, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said a lot about birds. I have discovered that he has not been wholly consistent. In the autumn 1988 edition of Rural Wales, which is published for the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, he noted:
Of course there would be severe management problems in handling the environmental consequences"—
this is on the question of Hinkley point power station and in favour of the Severn bridge—
of migratory birds and fish and filtering out the sewage but perhaps a small risk to take.
The hon. Gentleman is prepared to put the environment second where he sees a benefit to the public, but on Cardiff bay we have been witnessing a complete turn around—

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Bennett: No. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has already made a speech. I cannot give way to him every time I mention him. If the hon. Gentleman is challenging what I have read, he can tell me afterwards.

Mr. Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When a speaker wrongly accuses a Member of hypocritically representing himself as being in favour of the environment and then quotes a document that he does not understand because it refers to a barrage where the tide still goes in and out half as far as before, is not he seriously misleading and misusing the procedures of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has made his point but he is incorrect. He argues against the Cardiff bay barrage on the ground of putting the environment and birds before the public interest, as we perceive it, of the regeneration of Cardiff bay, yet on the Severn barrage he was prepared to put other interests before those of migratory birds. We are entitled to reach certain judgments from that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to Labour's amendment as a fictitious fig-leaf. I refer to the so-called reasoned amendment as the Sellotape amendment because it is transparent—one can see straight through it to the divisions within the Labour party on this issue. It has tabled a reasoned amendment—so-called—that is not a reasoned amendment but a series of debating points for Committee. It has not opposed the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just heard the Minister challenge, I presume, Mr. Speaker, because he said that the amendment was not a reasoned amendment and therefore should not appear on the Order Paper. It has been accepted. He should withdraw those remarks.

Mr. Bennett: It certainly is not a reasonable amendment. Labour has tabled nit-picking amendments


but it does not have the courage to tell us that the real reason for doing so is to cover Labour's divisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) asked the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside whether he favoured the principle of the Cardiff bay barrage—yes or no. The hon. Gentleman did not answer. I attempted to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman would not give way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked whether the hon. Gentleman was in favour of the barrage, but he would not answer. Despite the 19-minute speech by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, we were not able to discover the Labour party's position on the barrage. The simple fact is that the Labour party is divided on the issue.
Several Labour Members have continually voted against the Bill. We know the real reason why the so-called reasoned amendment has been tabled. The Western Mail of 15 November reported that
Labour Party managers now hope that anti-barrage MPs will unite behind a compromise amendment and not vote against the Government Bill when it is debated in the commons on November 25th.
In the Western Mail on 19 April, after the debacle of the all-night sitting that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and his friends arranged, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition, was challenged, having sat on the fence for a long time, and said:
I share the concern relating to the rising tidal level but since that is so all efforts are being made to protect the community and where necessary compensate for the effects. If I had been here, I would have voted for the Bill.
I am sorry that the Opposition oppose a Bill that will regenerate one of our greatest capital cities. It will create 49 per cent. more permanent jobs in the bay, 47 per cent. more houses, 54 per cent. more construction jobs, 46 per cent. more commercial space and 50 per cent. extra private sector leverage on investment. A run-down part of Cardiff will be regenerated for the benefit not only of the people of Cardiff and of Wales but of the United Kingdom. I therefore ask the House to oppose Labour's bogus amendment and support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before hon. Members go through the Division Lobbies, I must inform them that I have been told that there is a bomb scare at Bridge street, as a consequence of which the area has been sealed off and hon. Members may be inhibited from getting into the House. In the light of that information, and pending further information, I intend to take a relaxed view about the time of locking of the doors.

The House having divided: Ayes 130, Noes 278.

Division No. 16]
[7 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Bermingham, Gerald


Allen, Graham
Bidwell, Sydney


Alton, David
Blunkett, David


Anderson, Donald
Caborn, Richard


Armstrong, Hilary
Callaghan, Jim


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cryer, Bob


Benton, Joseph
Cummings, John





Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Doran, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morgan, Rhodri


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Enright, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
O'Brien, William


Fearn, Ronald
O'Hara, Edward


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Patchett, Terry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Pike, Peter L.


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Flannery, Martin
Prescott, John


Flynn, Paul
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, John
Redmond, Martin


George, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Robertson, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rogers, Allan


Gordon, Mildred
Rooney, Terence


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ruddock, Joan


Grocott, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Hain, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Hood, Jimmy
Snape, Peter


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Soley, Clive


Ingram, Adam
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Vaz, Keith


Leadbitter, Ted
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ron
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Litherland, Robert
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Livsey, Richard
Wigley, Dafydd


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McKelvey, William
Worthington, Tony


McMaster, Gordon
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McNamara, Kevin



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Marek, Dr John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boswell, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowis, John


Arbuthnot, James
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Tony
Butcher, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butler, Chris


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carrington, Matthew


Bellingham, Henry
Carttiss, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Cash, William


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chope, Christopher


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)






Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jessel, Toby


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dicks, Terry
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Fallon, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Farr, Sir John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Favell, Tony
Maclean, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
Major, Rt Hon John


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mans, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Maples, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marlow, Tony


Forth, Eric
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Freeman, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


French, Douglas
Mates, Michael


Fry, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, Sir George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gill, Christopher
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Miller, Sir Hal


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mills, Iain


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Sir David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Roger


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Gregory, Conal
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Page, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Patnick, Irvine


Hawkins, Christopher
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hayes, Jerry
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayward, Robert
Pawsey, James


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Michael


Hill, James
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Sir Robert





Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thorne, Neil


Rost, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Rowe, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tracey, Richard


Sackville, Hon Tom
Tredinnick, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Trippier, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shelton, Sir William
Walden, George


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shersby, Michael
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Walters, Sir Dennis


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Watts, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Sir John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Ray


Stanbrook, Ivor
Widdecombe, Ann


Steen, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Stern, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Yeo, Tim


Stokes, Sir John



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordi-ngly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of seven Members, four to be nominated by the House and three by the Committee of Selection. 
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fourteenth day after this day, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Select Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it. 
That three be the Quorum of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Orders of the Day — King's Cross Railways Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall he read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the last Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Mr. Gary Waller: The House will recall that the Bill seeks powers for works in the area of King's Cross and St. Pancras stations to increase capacity for British Rail and, indeed, for underground customers and to provide new rail services across London using Thameslink. It will also give London its second international station for trains via the channel tunnel, whether they finish their journey in London or continue to the midlands, to the north of England or to Scotland.
There have been some important developments since the Bill was last debated in the House almost a year ago. Provided that the motion is passed tonight, there will, I hope, be a further opportunity to debate the scheme in more detail before long.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my hon. Friend worried—as I am—that the Bill will perhaps not get through to the next stage given the fact that this morning the Northern Region Councils Association—a Labour-dominated body—wrote to every Member of Parliament in the northern region asking them to be present for this important debate? As he can see, I am the only Member of Parliament from the northern region who is here apart from, I think, one Labour Member of Parliament who is a Whip. Is not that a disgraceful state of affairs?

Mr. Waller: It demonstrates how assiduously my hon. Friend serves his constituents, and I am delighted to see him here. He is a most welcome supporter of the Bill
It would be helpful if I brought the House up to date on what has happened during the past year, so that hon. Members can take recent developments into account when making up their minds if and when they vote later.
On 8 May this year the Committee debating the Bill met for the 53rd and final day under the chairmanship—on that occasion—of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It was to examine the amendments and the additional provisions that were required in the Committee's report which, the House will recall, was published in June of last year. The provisions were accepted and the Bill has returned to the House for consideration.
Concern has been expressed about the letter sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport by Senor Carlo Ripa di Meana. The letter refers to King's Cross and the channel tunnel rail link. It is essentially a matter for the Government and I believe that they will be able to demonstrate that the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, which, it will be recalled, they introduced to meet European Community directive No. 85337, conform to that requirement. I also believe that the manner of Senor di Meana's intervention demonstrated to the full that the Government are right to stress the principle of subsidiarity which holds that the Commission should not become involved in matters that can more effectively be dealt with by member states. However, I do not wish to stray too far from the motion.
The last time the Bill was debated in the House I assured the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—whom I am delighted to see here —that a revised environmental statement on the project proposals would be available before the Bill was debated again. That environmental statement has now been published to conform to the Committee's requirements. Also, in May this year, British Rail submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval route proposals for a high-speed link from the channel tunnel to central London and a comparative analysis of other routes. After careful deliberation my right hon. and learned Friend made a statement on 9 October to the effect that he intended to ask British Rail to refine Ove Arup's proposed eastern approach to London sufficiently to allow public consultation to take place on that route and, indeed, for it to be safeguarded. At the time of that announcement, the Secretary of State also made clear his support for a King's Cross terminal, which he described as
essential not only to meet the need of the travellers within London, but…also crucial to serve the requirements of those who live elsewhere in Britain".
We come back to that point again and again. The new King's Cross scheme is vital as a national project, and for commuters and people living in the capital.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that there is no mutual inconsistency in the two schemes. I fear that people in the north have been somewhat misled by the Yorkshire Post and by others. It has been suggested that the decision to go east of London to Stratford will be detrimental to people in the north. Far from being the case, that scheme is vital for freight traffic and the King's Cross delevopment links intimately and properly into that scheme.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend is right. There has been some misunderstanding about the position. From the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, it is clear that he regards it as vital that King's Cross should go ahead as an essential part of the entire project. It would be wrong not to move in that direction.

Mr. William O'Brien: It is important for the north of England that King's Cross is allowed to proceed. One of the concerns of people in the north is whether sufficient finances will be provided to ensure that the project about which the Secretary of State spoke a few months ago will be allowed to continue. Can the hon. Gentleman prevail on his right hon. and learned Friend to


give us the assurance that there will be funds—public funds if necessary—to ensure that the King's Cross scheme goes ahead?

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport may say a few words about funding if he feels that it is appropriate.
I stress that King's Cross would offer advantages even if no rail link were built. It will offer advantages to international and to domestic travellers. When we debated the matter last year, some hon. Members opposed the Bill on the ground that they opposed the then route for the rail link. The fact that we are here again, just as keen to see the King's Cross project coming into being, demonstrates clearly that the two schemes are and always have been separate. As long as the Bill goes through Committee and receives a Third Reading, the King's Cross project will go ahead regardless of the timing of the link between the channel tunnel and London. It stands independently as a valuable scheme.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that since the decision by the Secretary of State on the channel tunnel route to London, British Rail has appointed consultants to advise on the possibility of building the Eurostation above ground, rather than building it underground as proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Waller: Is the hon. Gentleman thinking about the Alan Baxter scheme? British Rail did not appoint Alan Baxter to advise on that matter; the company was a consultant to British Rail on a different matter. British Rail had no knowledge that the company would produce an alternative scheme for an international terminal above ground. I will come to that matter a little later, as the hon. Gentleman will hear.

Mr. Dobson: It would help other hon. Members to know whether British Rail has asked consultants to advise on whether it would be possible to build a satisfactory station above ground rather than underground, as proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Waller: To the best of my knowledge, there has been no such request by British Rail. I am sure that British Rail has considered all the options and it may have asked the consultants to study alternatives. I am clear that the proposal that we are discussing, which involves a two-level station, is the best for Londoners and the best for travellers, whether international or domestic. Let there be no mistake about that.
The needs of international and of domestic travellers dovetail at King's Cross. It is easily accessible by train, by tube, by bus and by taxi. As a result, most passengers arriving for international trains are expected to do so by public transport rather than by car, thus avoiding congestion on local roads. I know that such congestion has been a major concern among hon. Members.
The changes include longer platforms so that longer trains can be run, offering more capacity, and a new passenger concourse building to link the two stations. The other significant development is the new connections and platforms for Thameslink, allowing Network SouthEast to introduce trains from Peterborough and Cambridge across

London to Gatwick airport, to Kent and to Sussex. That will give London its first express route across the capital and it will be a boon to many travellers.
From the north of England and Scotland, the proposals provide for through and connecting international trains. They will also cut journey times to Gatwick and to the south coast. A first-class interchange at King's Cross is also important for passengers from the west midlands, from the north-west of England, from north Wales and from the west of Scotland using existing rail services at Euston. British Rail has decided to have a dedicated, high-quality link between the stations and is examining a number of options effectively to make Euston part of the international terminal complex.

Mr. Dobson: Exactly how will British Rail connect Euston and King's Cross stations? The British Library sinks seven storeys below ground on the other side of St. Pancras station. How can British Rail have an adequate link? During the previous debate, it was said that trains would be able to proceed from the north-west, with a bit of dodging about in Hampstead, to King's Cross. An arrangement allegedly involving Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras was not mentioned. The stations are a long way apart.

Mr. Waller: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's final point shortly. All that I can say on the fixed link between Euston and the new complex—because I mentioned that a number of options are still being considered—is that it will be a dedicated link. Some of the roads in the vicinity which are owned by British Rail, for example, may be used and a bus may travel on a dedicated route or on a dedicated track. At this stage, I cannot say what the link will be, although I can say that it will be a dedicated, high-quality link.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waller: I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me continue at this stage. I am sure that he will seek to make his own speech in the debate.
I will respond to the hon. Gentleman's other point. Interchange by the Euston-King's Cross link will complement the through international train services that British Rail plans to run from the north-west and the west midlands to Paris and Brussels. Initially, the services will operate through existing routes through west London. They will be diverted to run through the King's Cross low-level station when it opens using the proposed West Hampstead chord line for which British Rail seeks powers in the British Railways (No. 3) Bill.
A recent development that the House will wish to take into account is represented by the publication last month of a so-called "alternative strategy" document produced by consulting civil and structural engineers Alan Baxter and Associates. It might be considered surprising that the firm refused to supply British Rail with a copy of its report prior to publication, even though much of the information it used was obtained in its capacity as consulting engineers to the BR board in relation to a planning appeal for a location to the north end of the King's Cross site. One may ask what account the firm took of the duties it owed of confidentiality and good faith, bearing in mind that, far from inquiring whether the BR board would object, it did not even say what it was doing.
A detailed study of the strategic document reveals why it is not difficult to understand that there was some unwillingness to have it subjected to detailed transport analysis. If hon. Members plan to refer to that document, it would be helpful if they addressed its basic flaws. Unfortunately, they were neglected, except in passing, in the full-page feature article in The Independent by Gavin Stamp and Jonathan Glancey on 20 November. Those journalists may know something about environmental issues, but if they understand transport issues, they were jolly well doing their best to conceal the fact.
An overwhelming difficulty with the Baxter proposals for King's Cross is that they make no provision for any improvement to Network SouthEast's Thameslink cross-London services, which is an essential element of the British Rail plan. The position for the international station chosen by Baxter would make it impossible to provide any route between Thameslink and the east coast main line. It is only by placing the new station beneath the existing one that all the required rail connections can be made. Baxter, rather weakly, tried to find a virtue in separating the express and local services. In truth the main justification for the scheme is utterly dissipated.
The Baxter plan does not permit the operation of international trains to King's Cross before the completion of a new rail link from the channel tunnel. The completion date for the rail link is uncertain. Therefore, it is obvious that one of the most important features of the scheme—the fact that the rail link and the international station can be considered independently—would be lost. The disruption of train services during the work would be on a much greater scale than under the British Rail plan.
Major problems would also be caused to the high proportion of international passengers at King's Cross —perhaps they would represent as many as three quarters of the total of such passengers. They would be expected to interchange at King's Cross with London Underground and other BR services. However, the need for some form of travolator or form of fixed link would involve an extra change, which is avoidable and would be provided at the expense of convenience and journey time.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): There is a risk of a misleading illusion being formed and I know that my hon. Friend would wish to avoid that. My hon. Friend said that the Baxter station would prevent the arrival of international trains at King's Cross before the creation of a rail link. He then said that about three quarters of all international passengers will end up at King's Cross. However, are we not talking about two propositions divided by a considerable number of years?

Mr. Waller: It is impossible to know. However, my hon. Friend may have misunderstood me. I said that three quarters of the total number of international passengers are expected to interchange at King's Cross with London Underground and other BR services.

Mr. O'Brien: Reference has been made to services to King's Cross for passengers who will travel from the north and other parts of England and from the continent. There is no InterCity link between London King's Cross and the Stratford terminal. Therefore, the link between Stratford and King's Cross is of great importance. Will the hon. Gentleman persuade the Secretary of State of the necessity

of that InterCity link going ahead, because it is important to the entire system? If the proposed scheme is to succeed, we must have that InterCity link.

Mr. Waller: My right hon. and learned Friend has said as clearly as possible that he regards the second London terminal at King's Cross as an intrinsic part of the scheme.
It may be of significance to hon. Members with constituencies in the King's Cross vicinity that, at the very least, the alternative Baxter scheme will be no less disruptive to homes, highways and places of work than the BR proposals. It is clear from an examination of the Baxter proposals in depth that many of the disadvantages have not been addressed seriously. I shall be interested to hear any arguments in favour of that proposal, for it would be easy to knock them down. I do not regard the Baxter alternative as a serious proposition.

Mr. Dobson: I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the station provided for in the Bill is intended to serve trains coming initially along a different route—not from Stratford—to the Euroterminal. Will that station then be fit, without any redesign or rejigging, to take trains that have come via Stratford?

Mr. Waller: That is an important question. The alignment of the station does not have to change at all to take account of the new east route into London in favour of which my right hon. and learned Friend has declared himself. There should be no misunderstanding about that. On previous occasions, hon. Members have opposed the Bill for that very reason, as they thought that, by bringing the Bill forward, it represented a commitment to the southern approach to London. That is not the case.
The Bill has been before the House for three Sessions. It has been debated on several occasions and it had its Second Reading in May 1989 when it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). In two previous debates similar to this one, it has enjoyed a substantial majority in support.
The Select Committee, under the expert chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), considered the proposals in detail over 53 days. That was the longest time given to any private Bill since the Great Western Railway Bill of 1835.
The scheme is of strategic, national importance. The House has given a great deal of detailed attention to the Bill, and the promoters and the petitioners have devoted a great deal of time and effort to the case. Surely it would be right for the House to consider the Committee's amendments as soon as possible in this Session. That requires the Bill to be revived tonight so that it can continue its progress.
I commend the motion.

Mr. Chris Smith: I oppose the carry-over motion for the Bill, as I did when we debated it a year ago.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) referred to the length of time and the detailed scrutiny that the Committee gave to the Bill. The Committee gave British Rail a ferocious roasting over the way in which it had introduced the Bill and prosecuted its case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand if some of us treat with a certain amount of scepticism some of the assurances that BR has subsequently given.
Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves what this Bill does. It gobbles up 17 acres of land and property in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to create a low-level box that will include platforms and railway lines serving the channel tunnel traffic, Thameslink and other commuter traffic. It involves the loss of 83 homes and the displacement of 326 residents, the demolition of four listed buildings and the loss of 168 work places providing 1,620 jobs. It will mean the loss of 58 shops, 38 of which provide key services to local people. It will result in the destruction of Camley street natural park, which is used by thousands of local school children. It will necessitate six years of construction work for 24 hours, seven days a week, which will render many of the homes in that district uninhabitable for substantial periods. It will also mean the diversion of two major traffic arteries over temporary roadways for three years.
Therefore, in the light of those consequences, it behoves the House to assure itself that there is no conceivable alternative to the British Rail proposals and that they will achieve the aim that we all want—the ability of channel tunnel traffic to serve the whole country, not just London. I do not believe that British Rail has got it right. I argue the same case this year as I did last year, but with greater justification.
A number of factors relating to the King's Cross proposals have changed. Last Wednesday the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill received its Third Reading. That Bill extracted from the King's Cross Railways Bill those items of work relating to safety improvements at the London underground station at King's Cross following the Fennell report on the King's Cross fire. London Underground correctly realised that it would be better for it to make its proposals as a separate Bill, which it has done, and the Bill has now passed through the House. Therefore, that section of the King's Cross Railways Bill relating to those works is effectively redundant and the relevant clauses will have to be removed.
In addition, the Secretary of State has recently made an announcement on the decision to bring the high-speed link in from the east via Stratford rather than from the south. It is extremely important to the case for assessing whether we should proceed with the King's Cross proposals as currently enshrined in the Bill.
The European Commissioner for the environment has said that he believes that there has been a failure to carry out a proper environmental impact assessment. That is also important.

Mr. O'Brien: I am following my hon. Friend's contribution closely and I appreciate his concern as a constituency Member. He referred to the European Commissioner's comments on the environmental assessment. Is the environmental assessment to which my hon. Friend referred the same one as that referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who I understood to mean the King's Cross project, while my hon. Friend was referring to the high-speed link? Will my hon. Friend clarify that?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has identified an extremely important point. The European Commission's principal

complaint is that, in order to be properly conducted, an environmental assessment should consider not only the station, but the high-speed link—the two should be considered together. British Rail has so far totally failed to do so.
There has also been a High Court decision on the rights of the trustees of St. Bartholomew's hospital in relation to a substantial portion of British Rail land at King's Cross. That decision found in favour of St. Bartholomew's and against British Rail, and has thrown some of British Rail's funding calculations into a degree of confusion.
In addition to all those new factors, several alternative proposals—including some involving King's Cross—have emerged. The hon. Member for Keighley mentioned the Baxter scheme. I hold no specific brief for the Baxter scheme, but it has attempted to demonstrate that alternative schemes could be produced that would retain the Government's proposal for a terminus—an inter-change—at King's Cross, but states that the plan would be more satisfactory if it were achieved without creating an enormous hole in the ground which British Rail proposes, with all the consequent destruction of homes, jobs and local neighbourhood.
My argument remains principally that King's Cross cannot cope with the proposed doubling of passengers at peak hours. Even if the Government and Opposition spokesmen are wedded to the idea of having King's Cross as an interchange for the channel tunnel, they do not have to use the scheme proposed in the Bill. I believe that we should not proceed with the Bill. British Rail should go back to the drawing board, look at the line and the station together, and produce a new, properly worked out Bill that addresses both the line and the station. In his article 169 letter, the European Commissioner stated that it was important that the rail link and the station should be considered together in terms of the environmental impact assessment if the European Community directive, signed by the Government and agreed to by this country, were to be met.
One of my constituents was in touch with my colleague, the European Member of Parliament, Ken Collins, who chairs the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, to seek his advice on what the European Commissioner had done and the reasons behind his action. Mr. Collins's letter to my constituent, which is extremely clear, states:
In the case of the rail link, there would have been no proposal to build a terminal, were it not for the need to provide one for the Channel Tunnel rail link. The Commission is of the view that by dividing the project into two, the requirements of the directive are circumvented … there will be no environmental impact assessment of the project as a whole, taking into account the direct and indirect effects of the rail link and terminal.
The letter stresses that we breach the European directive in that we fail to consider the environmental impact of the station and the high-speed link together, as a whole, with all the direct and indirect consequences.

Mr. O'Brien: We could be accused of confusing the issue of environmental assessments. Such assessments must follow the planning application. As there are two separate applications—one for the King's Cross project and one for the high-speed link—it is difficult to see how the two environmental assessments can be taken together. My hon. Friend should consider that point carefully because people may be misled, as his constituent was.

Mr. Smith: The problem is precisely that the two applications, which will be the subject of two separate Bills, are being considered separately. It has long been my view, and I have argued consistently, that the two applications should be considered together. That would be preferable to the ridiculous procedure of considering a station in one Bill and a high-speed link in another. The sensible thing would be to examine the project in its entirety. If we did that, there would be much less of a problem and we would not be in such deep water with the European Commission.

Mr. Peter Snape: rose—

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is dying to intervene.

Mr. Snape: I merely seek clarification. I am following carefully what my hon. Friend says and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I am aware of the deep personal and constituency interest that he has in the matter. How would it be possible to take the two applications together when, thanks to the Government's incompetence, there is not yet a scheme to run trains to King's Cross? All that the Government have decided so far is to cancel the scheme which British Rail spent hundreds of millions of pounds of our money developing. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, those of us who have constituencies north of London are anxious to ensure that when the channel tunnel opens in 1993—that is the only certainty in the project—at least some attempt has been made to provide the essential services without which areas north of London will receive no benefit from this enormous project.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend identifies precisely the problem with which we have been landed by the Government and British Rail. They have made proposals for a station which are unattached to any proposals for a means of getting there. I should have thought that it was much more sensible to make proposals from the start for both a station and a link. If we allow the King's Cross Railways Bill to proceed and in the end no high-speed link or underground link between Stratford and King's Cross is built, we shall be left with an enormous white elephant at King's Cross with no means of getting to it from the channel tunnel. It is important to consider the link and the station together, and British Rail and the Government should have done so from the word go.

Mr. Snape: There is a small matter which I should draw to my hon. Friend's attention. I am sure that he saw the depressing report in The Sunday Telegraph that, with its customary foresight and thoughtfulness, the Treasury had decided to reject the Thameslink project. However, if that project goes ahead, we shall have some way, if not a particularly adequate one, of getting trains from the midlands and the north of England to the south of England, provided that the Hampstead chord line is also built. Temporarily for a few years trains could use that Thameslink line.

Mr. Smith: In theory my hon. Friend is correct. The same could be said of the routes around the west of London. Through trains from the north could be taken round that way. I shall come to through services in a moment. My hon. Friend must also recognise that the

Thameslink lines under central London would not be capable of taking the proposed high-speed trains which will come across from the channel tunnel.
The environmental impact assessment has earned the ire of the European Commissioner because it divorces the station from the link. But we must also recognise that the assessment which British Rail has carried out is deeply inadequate. There was no contact or consultation with local residents who would be affected. In assessing the impact on homes, British Rail completely missed out an entire family whose home in Caledonian road would be destroyed. It carried out a survey of the noise and vibration likely to be caused by the construction of the project and concluded that noise and vibration would be
unlikely to have a major impact.
Yet British Rail says that it will have to offer temporary rehousing for an extended period to many people who will be next door to the works because of the extent and nature of the noise and vibration that they will experience. How can an environmental impact assessment state that there will be no likely impact when British Rail has to admit that people will have to be temporarily rehoused? That demonstrates the inadequacy of the environmental impact work that has been done so far.
The first principal reason for not proceeding with the Bill at this stage is that the European Commissioner rightly identified serious failures in the environmental impact assessment work which should have been carried out. The second principal reason is that the Government's announcement of the route from the east via Stratford throws the scheme into question. British Rail asserts, and the hon. Member for Keighley said so again tonight, that in physical terms the planned exit of the lines from King's Cross at the south-eastern corner of the new proposed station is such that lines could go to Stratford just as easily as they could have gone southwards. I remain to be convinced. Let us remember that that assurance comes from British Rail, who, it was discovered in Committee proceedings on the Bill, designed platforms that were too short to take the trains that would come in to them. I wait to see conclusive proof that it is possible in physical and geographical terms to bring the lines from Stratford into the proposed station at King's Cross without making any changes whatever to the Bill. I will believe it when I see it.
Perhaps more importantly, the Stratford decision must throw the entire financing of the King's Cross station completely out of kilter. Neither the Government nor British Rail have told us exactly what the status of the Stratford station will be. Will it be a major interchange? How many passengers is it envisaged will get on or off the trains at Stratford? The answers to those questions are crucial to King's Cross. If passengers join or leave the trains at Stratford rather than King's Cross, fewer passengers will use the King's Cross interchange than was previously anticipated, so the cost per passenger that British Rail will have to pay to construct the station at King's Cross will increase.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly because I was not here at the beginning of his speech.
Those of us who live in south-east London not three miles from King's Cross know that if we were taking our children to meet a continental train, or if we were taking elderly parents or grandparents to meet the train, we would not take them to King's Cross, because we could


not park there or get them near the platforms. We would look for a station where we could park, say goodbye and then go home. King's Cross is not the right place for that sort of departure.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right, and for once he is on all fours with British Rail. British Rail has long argued that most passengers travelling to and from King's Cross will do so by public transport. That is an important point in respect of the public transport congestion that will ensue around King's Cross. The hon. Gentleman's point was valid; many people will choose to use Stratford in preference to King's Cross. That in turn will have an impact on the financial calculations that British Rail will need to do for the construction of the new station at King's Cross.
We are talking about an expensive operation. In May this year, British Rail estimated that the cost of King's Cross would be £610 million for the channel tunnel part of the project, £220 million for the Thameslink part and £570 million for the other works, a total of £1·4 billion for the construction of the interchange. If inflation continues at the same rate as it has maintained over the past couple of years, the estimate by the end of next year will be £2·2 billion for that construction.
Unless the Government start being rather more generous than they have hitherto said they will be, British Rail will not be able to secure the private sector funding that it would want, given the reduced passenger flows at King's Cross which it must anticipate.

Mr. O'Brien: I can see that this debate is developing into a north-south divide. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) says that he wants to use Stratford interchange because of its better parking, but we from the north would find Stratford very inconvenient. We would want to use King's Cross. The channel tunnel is being developed supposedly to benefit the whole country, but I fear that a "them and us" problem is beginning here. I hope that hon. Members will view the issue objectively and constructively from now on.

Mr. Smith: That too is a valid point, but my hon. Friend anticipated me: I was about to discuss through services to the north, which are extremely important.
It seems to me that the choice of the eastern route—the decision to locate a major interchange of some sort at Stratford—means that fewer passengers will come through King's Cross, so financing it will be more difficult since a great deal of money is involved.

Mr. Snape: Although some of my hon. Friend's figures are valid, those of us with constituencies north of London objected to this proposal at the time because of the impossibility of getting from Stratford to anywhere north of London. My hon. Friend glibly says that many people will de-train at Stratford. Perhaps he will tell us where they will go and how they will get there.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Government are wrong to have identified Stratford as the location for a major interchange? Does he wish to remove the possibility of industrial and economic regeneration in the east end of London—the whole purpose behind the campaign of the borough of Newham for the choice of

Stratford as a terminal? Even the Secretary of State for the Environment has claimed regeneration as one of the principal reasons behind the Government's decision.

Mr. Snape: If my hon. Friend wants to line up with the Secretary of State for the Environment, I consider that he chooses his enemies even more recklessly than his friends. It is obvious from the railway geography of Stratford that it will be impossible, without billions of pounds' worth of public expenditure on the railways, to get anywhere from there. Surely it is not the function of a transport planner to locate an interchange at Stratford just because there is a vacant space there. The function of transport planning is to enable the rest of us to move around the country as best we can. We will certainly not be able to do that from Stratford, which is why my hon. Friends and I are determined to have a proper terminal at King's Cross from which we and our constituents can benefit.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend goes too far in attempting to write off his agenda the possibility of a major interchange at Stratford. I remind him that he and I strongly support the construction of the east-west crossrail under central London, to link Stratford and east London with west London and to provide thereby the possibility of direct links from Stratford to the west and to lines running out of Paddington. My hon. Friend is wrong to say that Stratford will never lead anywhere; it can become an important interchange.
Of course I appreciate that some of my hon. Friends passionately believe these things because they believe what British Rail has told them—that King's Cross is the only possible way of achieving links through to the north. I do not necessarily accept that view, although I understand why some people may.
It is perhaps worth examining what British Rail has said in the past few years about through services from the north to the channel tunnel. It has always claimed that one of the main advantages of its plan for King's Cross is that it offers—I quote the briefing material handed out at British Rail stands at the party conferences this year —
the ability to handle through trains to continental Europe from the midlands, the north and Scotland.
The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 places an obligation on British Rail to provide such services. Section 40 requires British Rail to prepare by the end of 1989 a plan stating measures it proposes to take to secure
the provision … of international through services serving various part of the United Kingdom, and an increase in the proportion of passengers and goods … carried by international through services.
British Rail produced its plan as required in a report entitled "International Rail Services for the United Kingdom" published in December 1989. The report said that from the opening of the channel tunnel British Rail planned to run four through trains during the day from Manchester, Wolverhampton, Leeds and Edinburgh and four during the night from Swansea, Plymouth, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Before the station at King's Cross was built, the trains would run on lines through south-west London. When the station is completed all services, except those from Swansea and Plymouth, would run through King's Cross.
After meeting the requirements of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 with those somewhat confident promises, British Rail published papers in June on the routes review, and they were strangely non-committal about through services.


The six-page memorandum by the British Railways Board made only three brief references to services for passengers north of London. Paragraph 22 states:
While it remains the Board's intention to run certain through trains the majority of passengers from the Midlands, the North and Scotland will travel on connecting intercity trains via London rather than through trains.
Paragraph 31.6 states:
There remains uncertainly about the through services from and to the Midlands, the North and Scotland.
In July and August this year the reason for the note of caution became clear. It emerged that the specification on which British Rail had been working for splitting trains to serve Wolverhampton as well as Manchester on the west coast main line and Leeds as well as Edinburgh on the east coast main line had proved unworkable because costs had risen far above the original estimate of £150 million. As a result, British Rail is now examining the feasibility of running shorter, non-splitting trains on the two lines. It seems that, far from fulfilling the requirement of the Channel Tunnel Act to increase the proportion of international passengers carried by through services, British Rail has embarked on an exercise which will reduce the proportion of through services from the north.

Mr. Waller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be convenient for most international travellers from the north to seek an interchange at Doncaster or King's Cross? As there will be only two trains per day serving west Yorkshire, the majority of people would choose other trains and look for an interchange. Therefore, a first-class interchange of the kind outlined in the Bill is essential.

Mr. Smith: I am coming to that. British Rail appears to be reducing through services from the north. It should provide much more frequent through services from the north directly to the tunnel and the trains should not necessarily stop in the middle of London. Proper opportunities must be provided for people in the north and in Scotland. British Rail takes refuge in saying that people can come to King's Cross and interchange there. The importance of the interchange facilities then becomes crucial.

Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central): What would happen to trains that left Sheffield on the midland main line? The line starts at Sheffield, which means that we shall get no through trains. However, we want an effective interchange. Will my hon. Friend answer the question posed by many industrialists in the north, especially in south Yorkshire? My hon. Friend spoke about impact studies. Economic impact studies carried out on our behalf clearly show that, unless decisions are made soon, investment that would come to the north of England will not come because of uncertainty. Decisions about interchanges at King's Cross and Stratford could lead to some stability about investment. That is important in terms of employment, the role of the channel tunnel and the through trains.

Mr. David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the current rate of progress there will be time for only three more speeches. Are you able to impose the 10-minute rule.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Unfortunately, I cannot, and so far I have not heard

anything out of order. I hope that hon. Members, and especially those who seek to intervene, will bear in mind the point that has just been made.

Mr. Smith: I have been extremely courteous in giving way to everyone who has sought to intervene. I wish to make some other important points on behalf of my constituents, who are directly affected by the Bill. I trust that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) will not seek to deny me the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents.
As I have said, interchange facilities are crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) was right to draw attention to the economic impact of channel tunnel traffic. However, the Bill does not propose, nor does British Rail or the Government, that freight should come through King's Cross. It is even more important to get right the distribution of freight through the tunnel than it is to get right the movement of passengers to and from the tunnel. The Bill does not affect that one way or the other.
British Rail has repeatedly claimed that one of the great advantages of its proposal for a low-level station at King's Cross is that it will provide easy interchange facilities for passengers using Euston as well as King's Cross and St. Pancras. I accept that King's Cross and St. Pancras and the lines that serve those stations will be able to provide an interchange facility of a kind. However, British Rail also claims that passengers coming to or going from Euston will be able to use King's Cross as an interchange. Those stations are approximately 1km apart, and even on British Rail's estimate the proposed travolator between King's Cross and Euston would take 20 minutes for the journey. That assumes that the travolator will be built because, as we have heard, between St. Pancras and Euston is the six-storey basement of the new British Library.
When the British Railways Board member responsible for this issue gave evidence on the matter to the Committee in July 1989, he could only say that the engineering feasibility of a travolator was being investigated. He said:
I very much hope that before this Committee finishes its deliberations we will be in a position to be more positive about it, and I personally hope we find it can be done, and for a reasonable price.
The Committee finished its deliberations a year and a half ago and there is still no news about how it will be possible to interchange between King's Cross and Euston. The King's Cross projects office was approached by one of my constituents last week and he was told that the engineers were still assessing possibilities. We are entitled to ask how on earth there can be good, proper, efficient interchange between Euston and King's Cross when, after two and a half years, British Rail has still been unable to come up with any detailed explanation of how it will be achieved.
Even if the interchange facilities operate well, there will be an impact on congestion at King's Cross itself. In 1987, the Piccadilly line westbound at peak hours was 10 per cent. over its maximum acceptable capacity. The Victoria and the Northern lines southbound from King's Cross and the Metropolitan and Circle lines eastbound from King's Cross were all very near to capacity. At that time, 19,900 passengers were arriving each day at King's Cross and St. Pancras between 7 and 10 o'clock in the morning. British Rail's expectation is that, with the new station being built at King's Cross, an additional 15,208 passengers will use


the facilities during that period. That is almost double the number of people trying to force themselves on to an already overcrowded underground network.
Above ground, the congestion is likely to be as bad. British Rail's original traffic estimate—that there would be no perceptible impact—was risible. Even the Department of Transport is now recognising that people will come in taxis, buses or cars to meet people arriving at King's Cross. It is proposing a six-lane highway up Pentonville road to replace the existing Pentonville road, but rather than solving the problem that will only maintain the slow-moving traffic status quo.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: I will, but it must be for the last time.

Mr. Wilson: Is there not another side to the coin? The huge numbers of people arriving at King's Cross and Euston and wishing to travel on to the continent will create a fair amount of additional and unnecessary congestion if they all have to find a way to get out to the alternative that my hon. Friend seems to support.

Mr. Smith: I am not sure what point my hon. Friend is making. If a passenger comes to King's Cross to transfer immediately to the channel tunnel train, there is no question of having to go out to Stratford.
The problem is one of traffic and congestion impact, which will spread well beyond the immediate environment of King's Cross. Therefore, it is important that British Rail goes back to the drawing board and thinks again. There is a possible breach of European Community law if the station is proceeded with without any recognition of the environmental impact of the high-speed link leading to it. The financial viability of the King's Cross project must be in serious question now that the decision to create an additional station at Stratford has been taken.
As yet, there are no answers from the Government or British Rail about the status, size and impact of Stratford. It is possible that the potentially £1·5 billion project at King's Cross will pre-empt other important expenditure on which British Rail should be embarking, and that will have serious implications. There are no guarantees of frequent through services from the north and Scotland. We have no information on what will happen to freight. There is an expectation of serious congestion at King's Cross and there is a real possibility that, even if King's Cross is chosen for the location for channel tunnel traffic, rather than being in the precise location and form set out in the Bill, the station could be located elsewhere at King's Cross.
For all these reasons, the House should not proceed, at this stage, with the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North): It is my intention once again, as I have so often in other debates on this subject, to put down parameters and markers for those who come from the north. When I say "the north", I do not mean only 250 miles north but 50 miles up from King's Cross. The problems are the same no matter how far up the country one comes from.

This matter first came to my notice under your Chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Court of Referees. We had an entertaining three or four days with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) who has a deep interest in the matter. We looked at the back ends of King's Cross and found wildlife in abandoned nooks and crannies, and discovered that double, if not treble, the number of people that the British Waterways Association thought were living on the canal actually did so. It was a fascinating hearing of the court.
We are debating a matter of deep importance to the north.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady always agrees with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Miscampbell: Let us be fair. My hon. Friend agrees with me on most occasions.
It has been said that this is a matter of them and us, but it is not. It is them, but it is not us. We are speaking for the whole country and for a far bigger constituency than that of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. We can hardly overestimate the importance to the north of the decision that we are making. If there is to be a high-speed link, it must come through to King's Cross and it ought to come through—so that we start at both ends together, so that we know that it is there. The Bill will allow that to happen. Nothing needs to be changed to allow that to be done.
However, this is basically a decision for the Government. It is most desirable that we have a clear and unequivocal decision. As has been said, if the link terminates at King's Cross, all is not lost. We may be able to have the Stratford complex as well as King's Cross, but this will all cost money. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) will agree with me when I say this. The Labour party may be saying it anyway, but we must also say that money must come from the Government. We cannot get it from private enterprise, and there is no way round that. It should be made clear that if the north is to be looked after, money must come from the Government.

Mr. Barry Porter: My hon. and learned Friend will have retired by then.

Mr. Miscampbell: It may be that if the money does not come from the Government, others will retire as well.

Mr. Dobson: Although King's Cross station is in my constituency, I have always believed that it was right to have the Eurostation at King's Cross. However, I am extremely dubious about the underground proposals that are before us. If British Rail were confident in its assertion that it can deliver an adequate service to the north through its proposals, why did it advise the original promoter of the Bill not to accept my instruction to the Committee that it should assure itself that this proposal would guarantee a fast, frequent and reliable service to the north and Scotland?

Mr. Miscampbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall not take up the content of it, because I am not in a position to comment on the burning constituency problems of the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We all, of course, understand the arguments that


they advance, but surely an overall decision must be taken. I accept that that will cause great trouble in Islington, and on that basis there may be potent arguments for an overground or underground system. It is not for me to interpose my views on that matter at this moment. I am merely saying that we need the development.
The truth is that Stratford is no substitute for King's Cross. Indeed, it can be only an adjunct to it. At the end of the day, it is King's Cross that will let us through into the entire network.
It is surely relevant to embrace in our consideration the area 50 miles up country and areas beyond all the way up to Glasgow. It is relevant also to consider what has happened in the north of England over the years. For example, about 100 years ago Liverpool was as large a port as New York, and had a far better dock system. In the context of the Bill, I am not all that fussed about passengers. After all, passengers can put themselves on a travolator, if necessary. I am more interested in the fact that the high-speed link will extend from King's Cross to both sides of the country, where millions live. It will extend to the manufacturing heart of the country.
I return to Liverpool, which is the first western port. It will never return to its days of glory, but I feel that it 'would double, treble or perhaps even quadruple its present throughput if were known that freight could be handled more efficiently at the docks. The problems with Liverpool have been largely cured and the complaints have been met. Liverpool is all right in its docklands; it is not too bad at all.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is the dock labour board.

Mr. Miscampbell: I shall not argue that matter now. I merely say that Liverpool is able to take its chance internationally. If the goods came into Liverpool and were able to enter the system by means of high-speed lorries, there would be beneficial consequences for us all. As I have said, there would be a transformation of the area 50 miles north of London. That is what we should be considering.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall be brief because I know that others wish to speak. I support the carry-over motion. I appreciate the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I congratulate him on the way in which he has argued the interests of his constituents. I am sure that he will not be surprised, however, if I lake a different view.
We must consider the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury along with the interests of many other people. Whenever there is a controversial development we find that there are many who want it, but not in their back yards. That is often the position in my constituency, and I am sure that many hon. Members have shared the experience.
King's Cross must be London's second international passenger terminal, but construction there is not yet secure because of the decision to route the high-speed rail link via Stratford. I am sure that the entire House appreciates that. It is crucial that the Bill continues on its way if we are to enable the development at King's Cross to take place.
What is the importance of King's Cross? It will be a nationally important facility for international passenger

services to the north of England, to regions beyond London and to London itself. I shall quote some information that has been sent to Members representing northern areas over the past few days by the North of England Regional Consortium, which states:
King's Cross will be the key terminal to link the North of England to the Channel Tunnel, allowing international trains to run directly along the Key Main lines beyond London.
King's Cross will provide an excellent interchange for passengers from the North of England, the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Ireland wishing to catch high-frequency London Channel Tunnel trains.
King's Cross could be operational for significantly faster Channel Tunnel services providing a much-needed north-south link (via Thameslink line) as soon as the terminal is constructed—it does not have to wait for the HSRL to be built.
That is extremely important in this context. The consortium continues:
King's Cross could be implemented with minimum delay because powers for its construction are being dealt with now.
King's Cross will provide excellent access to London itself.
In October, when the Government announced their decision on the high-speed rail link route, the British Rail-preferred route direct to King's Cross—the best for the north—was rejected in favour of a longer route via Stratford. All of us in the north were disappointed when that decision was made, but that is what happened. The announcement committed the high-speed rail link to terminate at King's Cross. On that basis, the passage of the Bill is the immediate test of the Government's commitment to secure a terminal development at King's Cross. We hope that the Government are sincere and that they intend pushing forward the Bill, which will meet channel tunnel demands.
The consortium believes that notwithstanding the commitment the Government's decision creates a real risk that the high-speed rail link will terminate at Stratford, and that because of the extra costs involved the project at King's Cross will never be built. To prevent that happening, three main objectives must be achieved. First, I take up one of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), which the consortium puts in this way:
King's Cross international must be developed at the earliest possible opportunity. The … Bill does not need alteration in view of the HSRL route decision and should now receive a swift and uncontroversial passage through its remaining stages.
I sincerely hope that it will. The consortium continues:
Public money should be put into the King's Cross to Stratford line because this connection is of national strategic significance, recognising that from a commercial point of view the private sector cannot be expected to share the objective of connecting the HSRL to the rest of the UK network.
It is essential that public money is forthcoming.
I shall continue to quote the recommendations of the consortium. The next paragraph reads:
Construction of the HSRL should begin at both ends, working towards the same time scale, so the link operates from day one of its completion from King's Cross. The chosen route is expected to cost £750 million more than the BR route and, considering that the original BR funding package of last year was rejected because it did not provide an adequate commercial return for the private sector and for financial reasons alone, is a severe threat to the Stratford to King's Cross Link.
It is British Rail's view that the link will be needed by 1998, and the Government's announcement suggests a


possible delay until the year 2005. Early high-speed rail link construction will ease congestion on existing lines while providing much-needed capacity.
Rail plans for Stratford should be made clear, if there are any. Any passenger facilities at Stratford must not dilute the full development of the King's Cross terminal project as proposed. Likewise, any freight facility at Stratford must not undermine the proposed development of freight facilities in the north. That is a factor which concerns me. In the areas that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton represent, there is delay at a freight station because a planning application has been called in by the Secretary of State. If a Berne gauge high-speed rail link capable of carrying freight to Stratford is proposed, northern firms will use road transport to Stratford—causing further congestion and environmental damage. The full impact of such a proposal on the rest of the United Kingdom must be considered, must be evaluated.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend spoke cogently and with due emphasis about the importance of the evidence put to the House by the North of England Regional Consortium. He will be aware of my close connections with that organisation since its inception. My hon. Friend has worked hard to stress to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House how important it is to listen to the authentic voice of the north of England. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the interests of the north are bound up with the Bill's success. It is a test of representativeness—as to whether, if one comes from the north, one backs the Bill.

Mr. Lofthouse: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Some northern areas are depending on the King's Cross development. Certain areas of Yorkshire have been devastated by the decline of the mining industry, and hope to attract alternative manufacturing industry. Their success may depend on the King's Cross development.
Opposition to the Bill runs counter to the objectives of the main political parties. The route decision has already caused longer journey times between the north and continental Europe, additional costs to the high-speed rail link, and further delay and uncertainty. Before that decision was made, proponents of the Stratford scheme argued for further development King's Cross as well as at Stratford. They must not now be allowed to argue that there is no alternative.
We all recall the argument that Stratford was not an alternative to King's Cross. Having heard some of tonight's speeches, I hope that some people do not have it in mind that the King's Cross development should not go forward and that the main development should be at Stratford.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Perhaps it would be convenient if I addressed the House very briefly at this point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on the manner in which he presented his motion and spoke to it so eloquently. The Government support the revival motion, and I find myself in agreement with many of

tonight's speeches about the importance of King's Cross and of the links, via not only the east and west coast but the midland main lines to the north of England.
I will comment briefly on five points that, although they do not directly affect the Bill, are relevant to the revival motion. As to the Commission's comments on the environmental assessment procedure, I confirm that the Government and British Rail do not seek in any way to circumvent the Community's requirements in terms of preparing a full environmental assessment. That applies not only to that stretch of the line for the new high-speed rail link between Detling and King's Cross that is under way—British Rail has already completed the work from Detling to Folkestone—but to the work on King's Cross station itself. There is no intention in any way to frustrate or to circumvent the rules. They are clearly understood within the whole Community, and British Rail and London Transport will honour them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his reference to the implications of a station at King's Cross being opened before a high-speed rail link is completed and opened. That matter is for British Rail, but it ought to be possible for trains to run—instead of via the west London line—on Thameslink, through King's Cross, and on to the north.
That would require engineering work not only in the tunnel but in south London, but it should be possible in railway terms. If the station is ready before the rail link, that would bring an extra benefit.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the London Underground, and he is right to say that the low-level interchange work is the subject of a separate Bill. I visited those works myself last Friday. However, the major part of London Underground's works at King's Cross are contained in, and depend on, the passage of the Bill before the House. They concern the widening and enlargement of the ticket hall, which is extremely crowded. Even London Underground's low-level interchange work will not solve that particular problem. That is another reason for reviving the passage of the Bill.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell), who is temporarily absent from the Chamber, and several other hon. Members alluded to the scheme's funding. The Government have no specific proposal before them, but I confirm that it will be an extremely expensive project. It will include at least three elements of funding. The first is that portion due for the improvements to London Underground, which will be expensive; I have referred already to the larger ticket hall at King's Cross. Secondly, there will be improvements to Network SouthEast's Thameslink services. Anyone who has visited the Thameslink station at King's Cross knows that it is wholly inadequate. The platforms are small, and the tunnel is too narrow to take intercapital, channel tunnel trains, and is rather winding.
Network SouthEast will gain some benefit, so our investment appaisal for that portion of the work will follow the normal procedure in respect of new Network SouthEast investment. We will take into account cost-benefit appraisal techniques in assessing Network SouthEast's advantages, the channel tunnel services, and InterCity services. Several different elements of the heavy and underground railway combine in the project, so it will be difficult to appraise. Planning permissions will be


needed from Parliament, so we will have a clearer idea of what is feasible and possible. The Government will then give applications urgent consideration.
We are providing British Rail with sufficient funds to ensure that the necessary design and other work necessary to keep the project properly planned and prepared can be undertaken.

Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister throw any light on what is meant by British Rail's reference to a dedicated link between King's Cross and Euston stations? The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) spoke of a dedicated road, but none exists. The only road between Euston and King's Cross stations is Euston road, which is dedicated to traffic. An underground travolator would have to negotiate the six underground storeys of the British Library, and five tube lines between the two stations. There are no British Rail-owned roads that could contribute in any way to a dedicated connection between the two stations. Any such line would have to be underground, at ground level, or overground—but British Rail has not come up with any real answers.

Mr. Freeman: I share to a certain extent the hon. Gentleman's interest in how passengers are to travel between Euston and King's Cross. We must wait to see whether British Rail has in mind an elevated pathway, or something at ground level. Despite the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about the aspect, he must concede that it does not in any way invalidate the importance of a brand new station at King's Cross and St. Pancras—or the fact that those coming down the west coast main line will—through the benefit of the chord for which British Rail is seeking permission in the British Rail (No. 3) Bill—find that their trains can run into King's Cross station.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras makes a valid point, and I am not seeking to make light of it. However, the answer to his question—which is in the gift of British Rail, not me—does not in any way invalidate the Bill's importance and significance.

Mr. Dobson: The whole route—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I do not believe that the Minister wants to give way.

Mr. Freeman: I would like to make my fifth and final point, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will again catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The question of the rail link was raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport never said that he does not anticipate the completion of work on any high-speed rail link to be in 2005, or that construction will not begin before the year 2000. That was a misunderstanding. My right hon. and learned Friend was referring to the time when capacity would run out on Southern region, according to British Rail. What we have said is that if construction takes five years and planning permission and further work on the environmental assessment of the rail link takes three, the rail link cannot be completed before the end of the decade. We have also said that we want the private sector to be involved as much as possible in the financing of it.
The Wakefield terminal was not mentioned. I understand that the matter is subject to inquiry, so I am unable to comment, but the nine channel tunnel freight

terminals are extremely important to British Rail. Stratford, if it were the terminus of a Berne gauge railway, could not possibly be a substitute for them. They are needed to carry freight from the regions, which are also important in passenger terms.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister give us a commitment that public funds will be made available to ensure that the high-speed link from Stratford to King's Cross goes ahead without any hitches or disappointments? Will he also tell us whether the two environmental assessments will be dealt with together or separately?

Mr. Freeman: We have made it plain that we do not favour a high-speed rail link that terminates at Stratford. We want the link to run through Stratford, with a station to take trains on to King's Cross. There is no question of passengers being stranded at Stratford—although Stratford is, of course, an important interchange, which will become more important as the years go by. The necessary links are within London—on crossrail, the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley should respond to the question about environmental assessments. As I have said, however, both British Rail and London Regional Transport will comply with both the letter and the spirit of Community law, and will appreciate that the implications of the King's Cross assessment and those of the rail link assessment are inter-related.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend plan to say anything about the burning issue of the electrification of the midland main line, which is of great concern to his constituents, among others? He has already written to me, and I am grateful to him for that; but can he now say whether the decongestion benefit that might result from electrification—which was referred to by the midland main line consortium—has any bearing on his current thinking? The question is very pertinent to the spur line link, which is mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister will need some ingenuity if he is to deal with that question while remaining in order.

Mr. Freeman: I appreciate that my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) have long been interested in the prospect of the electrification of the midland main line, but I do not think that it is directly relevant to the Bill. I assure my hon. Friends that I will write to them.
By the time that the high-speed rail link is completed and is running into King's Cross—the end of the decade —British Rail may well have electrified the line, in which event the trains will run through not only my constituency, but the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the revival motion.

Mr. Peter Snape: We are discussing a revival motion. The principles of the Bill were agreed on Second Reading, and it was discussed in detail in Committee. If the House passes the motion, amendments made in Committee can be discussed further, and, no doubt, the Bill will be given a Third Reading.
There is a degree of cross-party support for the Bill —and, of course, some cross-party opposition. The scheme will benefit domestic as well as international passengers. It is fair to mention the benefits that will be experienced by Londoners, and those living and commuting in the south of England. For example, the longer platforms at King's Cross will allow longer trains to be run, which will relieve the overcrowding problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has pointed out that the platforms were originally not long enough to accommodate the trains that are now proposed. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) may think, I do not set myself up as an apologist for British Rail; BR did not pay me very well in the days when I worked for it, and now that it does not pay me at all I certainly do not intend to rush to its defence. However, I liked BR's rejoinder—that the trains were longer than originally planned because of the requirements of Customs and immigration in regard to drink. My hon. Friend sniggers. I remind him that a good half coach may be taken up by such provisions, and that, regardless of whether they are essential, they will be included in the through trains if and when they are introduced.

Mr. Dobson: That was not the reason given by the Committee, in three successive sittings. It argued that the platforms were long enough on the ground of measurements that had already been made.

Mr. Snape: I leave the House to decide whether the platforms were too short or the trains too long. Certainly British Rail has advanced a number of interesting explanations for the problem.
The scheme also authorises a link from the east coast main line into St. Pancras to take additional Network SouthEast trains from the Great Northern Line, as well as high-speed trains running between St. Pancras and the Bounds Green depot. It allows an enlargement of the underground station to meet the recommendations of the Fennell report; and, perhaps most important, it allows the extension of the Thameslink network. I hope that all of us who take an interest in railway matters will see the significance of that.
At present, the northern and southern railways, and those running through London, are constrained by capacity problems. The new station would allow two 12-car Thameslink platforms to replace the present cramped eight-car King's Cross Thameslink station, to which the Minister of State has just referred. Two weeks ago I visited that station for the first time. The fact that so many additional trains could go from Peterborough, Huntingdon, King's Lynn and Cambridge in the north to —[Interruption.] In the case of Huntingdon, I am not sure whether there would be cut-price fares on that line to Thameslink, but that is one of the places where services would be improved by the scheme. Trains would run through to many points in the south. The scheme would also allow more cross-London local services to serve other inner London areas.
In a speech that was as relevant as it was comprehensive my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that he thought that Stratford was a suitable alternative terminus. I made my disagreement plain during

my hon. Friend's speech. I do so again now. It is inconceivable that through passenger trains could run to Birmingham, or to other places in the midlands and the north, via Stratford. My hon. Friend mentioned the east-west crossrail and suggested that that would be the way for our constituents to complete their journeys. The purpose of the east-west crossrail is the alleviation of congestion on the underground and on roads in London. It is neither fair nor reasonable for my hon. Friend to suggest to those of us who represent constituencies north of London that our constituents should leave a trans-Europe train at Stratford and make their way, via the east-west crossrail, to the London terminus from which they wish to continue their journey. That is hardly the benefit that many of us envisaged when we supported the channel tunnel project.

Mr. Chris Smith: The east-west crossrail provides the potential for direct links from Stratford through to Paddington, Reading, Bristol, Cardiff and the west. That is not possible from King's Cross. If we were to accept my hon. Friend's argument and agreed that King's Cross should be a location for channel tunnel traffic because of its potential for links to the north, does he agree that it would not necessarily have to be this exact scheme at King's Cross? Does he agree that it is not the only possible option for a terminus there?

Mr. Snape: This is the only scheme that is before us. I have been in this place long enough to know that if one wants to knock a project on the head one merely produces on the back of an envelope—or, in the case of British Rail, through tracing paper on the kitchen table—a scheme that guarantees that there will be years of controversy to follow. Unacceptable though this scheme may, in part, be to my hon. Friend, it is the only one that provides us with any reasonable degree of security that there will be any service at all north of London after 1993 when the channel tunnel opens.

Sir John Farr: The hon. Gentleman is busily telling the House what we ought to be doing. Can he tell the House what he would do, if he were in Government, about electrifying the midland main line north of London?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to tell the hon. Member, as I said to the Minister for Public Transport, that he will find if very difficult to keep in order in answering that question.

Mr. Snape: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may use the same ingenuity as did the Minister for Public Transport. It is important that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and all the people who live alongside the midland main line should benefit from the project. I agree that they could best do so through electrification. Given, however, that all the signalling on the midland main line would need to be immunised prior to electrification and that all British Rail's signalling resources appear to be devoted to improving boat train routes Nos 1 and 2 in the south of England, we are still some way off that happy time when electrification could take place. I support the hon. Gentleman's demand, but it does not look as though electrification could take place without detailed preliminary work that would take a considerable time to complete.
Proper and direct Government involvement from the first day would have been the ideal solution in the case of


this vexed project. This is the greatest civil engineering project in the United Kingdom this century. It is, I am sad to say, typical of the Government that every detailed question that is put to Ministers receives virtually the same answer—"these are matters for British Rail." They shuffle off responsibility and deprive the people whom they blame of the resources to do the job. That makes many of us despair of the Government and their transport policy—to dignify the present shambles with such a name. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. He is as guilty as other Ministers. We would not be in the current mess if the Government had accepted their responsibilities from day one.
Although the motion is far from ideal, it is the only way forward. Responsibility for the mess should be placed fairly and squarely on transport Ministers and on the mandarins and Ministers at the Treasury who work the glove puppets to whom all too often one listens and who have got this country's transport infrastructure into the mess that it is in today—a mess that only the election of a Labour Government will go some way to turning around.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I shall be very brief.
The last time that I spoke in the House, I said that, although I had not always been as charitable towards British Rail as I could be, the time had come to pass on beyond my complaints and to bury the hatchet.Hansard recorded that without the word "beyond", so it appeared as to pass on complaints about British Rail. We must make as positive a contribution as we can. In that spirit, I suggest that if it could come to an accommodation with the British Library for a travolator to pass through the basement, there would be amazing possibilities for improving the literacy of a whole number of passengers since the speed at which the train would be allowed to proceed would be unquestionably quite slow.
Since the Bill was last before the House, we have had several changes. If we confine ourselves to the high-speed rail link alone, we find that whereas before it was not to be of European gauge it is now to be of UIC gauge. Before, it was lamentable to imagine that it would go to Stratford; now, it is going I o Stratford. Before, as the former Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) said, it was highly unlikely that freight would use the new line; now, it is to be worked up for freight—changes that I greatly welcome and are absolutely sound. I congratulate the Government on having been persuaded, after a great deal of time, that we were not as daft as we appeared.

Mr. Dobson: All that has happened is that it has been decided that the route will not go through south London; no firm decision has been made that it will go to Stratford or anywhere else.

Mr. Rowe: My understanding is that there is a firm decision that it is going to Stratford. How it will get there is as opaque as it always has been.
That brings me to another point that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who temporarily is not in the Chamber, made about the Baxter scheme for King's Cross. He said that it has no less impact on houses, buildings and the environment than the present scheme. My understanding of the Baxter scheme is that, apart from anything else, it would have preserved the Great Northern

hotel. Whether that is germane or not, if that is so, it shows clearly one of British Rail's continuing weaknesses—that it has an extraordinary inability to count the number of buildings that will be affected or to identify them. British Rail persuaded the Government that a change to the safeguarded part of the route would not have any consequences for any listed building. It is wrong. If the final freight route is one of a number of highly likely routes, the change required in the corridor passing through my constituency will directly affect a listed building. If British Rail wishes to carry conviction in this place, it must be much more accurate.
We have been informed that the project will cost £1·4 billion. The new high-speed rail link—we are not sure where it will go—will cost about £4·2 billion for 55 miles of new line. I understand that the Germans can build a new railway for about £20 million a mile. My point is that, even after all this time, there is little certainty about any of British Rail's cost predictions. When there is, the projects seem to be very expensive. There should be a much closer look at the costs, both of the King's Cross terminal and of the line to it.
Given the fluid situation and the fact that nothing is the same as when the Bill was first presented, we should compare the costs of the present scheme with those that Kent, for example, will have to pay. There is a danger that there will be no international station at Ashford, which would be absurd. I took some comfort from my hon. Friend the Minister when he said that it was manifestly a benefit to have a station before a line was built. That is true for Ashford as for King's Cross.
My hon. Friend the Minister could do a lot worse than turn British Rail's attention to the new buildings that Kent county council's education authority has commissioned for schools. Such buildings have an estimated life of 60 to 70 years, but they can easily be uprooted and moved elsewhere. They can be clad so that they fit into almost any environment. I was impressed by the quality of those buildings and by the fact that they can be moved. Given that British Rail is always uncertain about where its stations will be, it may find that buildings that can be moved around the country are of great benefit.

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. He makes an extremely good point about fluidity with regard to the channel tunnel rail link and particularly the need for the King's Cross terminal. Would not British Rail be better served investing money in the appalling service that it provides in north Kent which causes our constituents such inconvenience and discomfort? Our constituents have been asked to pay about 8 per cent. more for their season tickets next year, taking the cost of, for example, a Chatham ticket to more than £1,700. They have been told that they must invest for the future—for what future, that of King's Cross or that of the north Kent line?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that, in responding to that intervention, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will direct his remarks to the Bill and the revival motion.

Mr. Rowe: As I understand it, the Bill is to be revived because of the intention to proceed without delay to the building of the station. We contend that, in the highly fluid situation in which British Rail finds itself, it would be much better off attacking the problems endured by


commuters in our part of the country than building a railway station, the line to which has not yet been designed or put out to tender. That is a powerful argument. If building were postponed, it would enable a certain amount of relief to be given to Kent.
The new national road transport forecasts had a high-growth and a low-growth scenario for Kent. The high-growth forecast has already been exceeded and traffic growth in Kent is almost double that predicted in 1984's national forecast. Before British Rail embarks on an enormously expensive and only partially designed chimera, we should give the unfortunate travellers of Kent a number of benefits, some of which could be easily provided.
First, there should be modern communications technology in the trains. There are no phones in the cabs, but there is no reason why drivers should not have portable phones. It is bizarre in this day and age that when trains break down—as they frequently do because of leaves on the line—the driver must stop the train and get out to ring up. Secondly——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he must direct his remarks to this Bill and in particular to the revival motion. It is not in order to discuss another Bill which he might like to see before the House.

Mr. Rowe: I understand what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that what I am proposing requires a Bill. If the Bill were not revived, the money that it is intended to spend would be made available to be spent on what I seek. However, I accept your correction.
Another change has been that the property market has collapsed. I understood that one of the reasons why the King's Cross station project was suggested was that British Rail expected to make a killing on the land that it would be able to develop as a result of its improvements to the railway station. That is known as making a more aggressive use of assets, as Mr. Chris Green wrote recently in the Financial Times. My concern is that under an aggressive use of assets one of his policies for Network SouthEast is to cut the back-up for trains to such a low level that should anything go wrong with a train—and our trains are the oldest on the network and are more likely to break down than any others—there will be no back-up provided.
When British Rail considers its assets, it would do well to wait to build the King's Cross station until it knows what it wants and what lines it must serve and until the property market has recovered. It should also spend the money that it proposes to spend on improving the travel-to-work life of many commuters, especially those in Kent, who are paying over the odds for a lousy service.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but it is important to stress that this is not a parochial debate and far less a debate about the merits or otherwise of local lines in Kent. The issue of a channel tunnel should be a great national debate and should have been a great national project. The tragedy of the past few years is that it has not worked out that way.
Having initiated the tremendous engineering project which we all admire and look forward to seeing come to fruition, the Government appear to have left it at that and the question of how the rest of the country is to be served by and benefit from that project has received pitifully little consideration.
The alternatives do not stand still or have benefits for all parts of the country. The alternatives are the positive approach which I advocated and the approach that ensures that all parts of Britain benefit from the channel tunnel. Otherwise, there will be a relative loss to the rest of the United Kingdom as more and more trade and commerce is drawn to the south-east by the lure of the channel tunnel. However belatedly, we must get out of the rut and begin—as a Labour Government will certainly do —to treat this as a huge national project to be undertaken seriously.
The motion is crucial for those of us who come from points north of London. It surprises me that no other Scottish party is represented on Conservative or on Opposition Benches—

Mr. Gordon McMaster: It is.

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is in the same party as I am, as far as I understand. No other Scottish party is represented on Conservative or on Opposition Benches. I am delighted to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster).
The project is of immense importance to Scotland. If one looks across the channel, as some of us have, and sees the way in which the matter is approached there, it is humiliating to consider what has gone on in Britain over the past few years. Around Calais, construction work will create a massive new rail terminal and a road system to lead to the tunnel at Calais. Where is the comparative development in Britain? Huge development is taking place in the centre of Lille to create a rail hub for the whole of northern Europe. Where is the comparative thinking in Britain?
We are struggling tonight to achieve the first tentative step in Britain's planning, not for two or three years hence, but for the better part of a decade hence, and to achieve at King's Cross the equivalent of what has been under construction for several years at Lille. We are struggling for a terminal at which trains can come in from all parts of the country, at which there can be an interchange for the continent and at which people can move on relatively quickly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has said, it would be better to have more direct trains to the continent. I hope that that will evolve in the fullness of time, but it will do so only when the electrification programme is extended to all parts of the country. For many years to come, there will be greater dependence on a good interchange than there can be on the prospect of direct services between Scotland, the north of England and Wales, and the channel tunnel and beyond. We must have the interchange.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, it is true that better schemes may be available. The King's Cross scheme may not be perfect and I respect the views of local Members who say that it is far from perfect. However, it is the only scheme on the table. If the project does not get into gear now and if we go back to the drawing board, it will be decades before we get


another scheme that is worked through to the present level. In the meantime, all the benefits of the channel tunnel will be lost to my part of the country and to many others.
Let us get on with the scheme because there is no reason for further delay. My hon Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, when he argues against the disruption of his own constituency, is on stronger ground than when he tries to prove that King's Cross is not the best available option for an interchange. I will elaborate on the point that I made about the disruption that may be caused when additional tens of thousands of people are brought into the area, if the development at King's Cross goes ahead. Surely the best answer is to get most of them out again as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend conjured up images of people coming out of taxis and meeting friends. The best alternative is for people to cross the platform and to get away to where they want. That is the most efficient way.
I am not prepared to accept for the rest of the country the idea that, from now until the year dot, either everyone will have to struggle across London to get to Waterloo, which is how things will start, or worse, under the new madness that has been conjured up, everyone will have to struggle out to Stratford to catch the connections for the continent. Where is Stratford? That is an unreasonable expectation.
I regret that the link will not come through south London. I have no wish to tread on the toes of col leagues who have legitimate local interests, but from the national standpoint, I think that it is regrettable that the link will not take that route. Half the decision has already been taken and it seems that the link will come to Stratford. The moment that that was decided, however, the fear was that we would never hear anything again about the link between Stratford and King's Cross. That would be a disaster for the rest of the country. That must not be allowed to happen.
We must have this Bill as it is the only one before us. It is absurd that we have to be tied up in private Bill procedure in order to allow railway developments of the type that we are discussing tonight. If the Government want such a project, they should be able to make a strategic, infrastructural decision. They should not have to rely upon the private Bill procedure, because the issue is too important. The whole thing is anachronistic.
If the channel tunnel is ever to be a genuine national undertaking that brings benefit to all parts of the United Kingdom, and if that is to be achieved within our lifetime, it is important that the Bill goes ahead. I hope that the first step towards that will be taken tonight.

Mr. Roger Gale: I will be brief, but I must take issue with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). A comparison between the north part of the Calais region and central London is ludicrous. If the hon. Gentleman had ever been there, he would know that the Calais region is like the surface of the moon. One could build not only a railway terminal there, but the fifth London airport and no one would notice. We are talking about a terminus in the heart of a great city and some proper consideration should be given to that.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Gale: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) suggested that, because this is the only Bill on the table, we should settle for it or we will not get anything. That is an equally ludicrous suggestion.
I listened with great care to the lengthy argument put forward by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I do not rebuke the hon. Gentleman for the length of his speech, as he is defending and promoting the interests of his constituents fiercely and properly. The environmental arguments that the hon. Gentleman has set out are also extremely valid. I not only listened to the hon. Gentleman's arguments tonight, but I have read the other speeches that he has made throughout the passage of the Bill. I studied his arguments at great length over the weekend and I have come to the conclusion that much of the hon. Gentleman's argument is extremely valid and needs a great deal of further consideration.
I shall not cover the ground already dealt with by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury; instead, I shall consider the credibility of the promoter of the Bill, British Rail. The House will recall that during the passage of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, British Rail stated that there was no need for a high-speed line. Apparently it was convenient for BR to say that, because, had there been such a high-speed line included in the Channel Tunnel Bill, it is possible that that Bill would have fallen.
Now we are told that BR must have a high-speed line. Those of us who serve Kent constituencies agree with that. I believe that a London terminus of the right kind must be established to provide the right links to the north and the rest of England. Above all, it must be built in the right place.
On Second Reading on 8 May 1989, at column 617, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) was asked why British Rail had changed its mind about the need for a high-speed rail link. He said simply: "Forecasts have been revised". Tonight we are entitled to ask how many more times those forecasts will be revised and in which direction.
It has already been suggested that if a terminus were built at Stratford East, it would have a major impact on the financial viability of the terminus at King's Cross. I want to know the answers to the questions. It is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr.Waller), who is the sponsor of the Bill, to come here without those answers. That has continually happened when other hon. Members have sought to move the carry-over motion.
The most recent edition of the Kent county council's "Railing Update" ran the headline
KCC to help sort out shambles".
The first line of the article stated:
Kent County Council has pledged to help sort out the shambles surrounding the International Rail Link.
The leader of the county council, Tony Hart, is reported as saying:
at the moment it appears to be little more than a line on the map, and a pretty thick and crude one.
If that is true, further consideration needs to be given to precisely where the London terminus will be located. In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) suggested that if the terminus were built at Stratford, East, it could save as much as £1 billion on the project. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will consider it in order if I state precisely what that £1 billion


could mean to those or us who live in the Network SouthEast region. We are continually being told by British Rail that how it spends its money depends on priorities. The priority for those of us who live along and use the north Kent line is that line itself, and the £1 billion saved on the project would go a devil of a long way to sorting out the line.
I have a piece of paper listing one traveller's journeys during the first fortnight of this month. Of the 20 trains travelled on from north-east Kent—Herne Bay, in my constituency to Cannon Street—two arrived on time, 17 were late and one was cancelled because no crew were available due to a clerical error in the rostering. That shows the standard of the management that we are being asked to endorse if we pass the Bill. I do not believe that the current management at British Rail is capable of building the project, although I believe that it needs building. We have a right to say that, if such a major project is to go ahead, we should not—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said earlier—settle for whatever is on the table, but should ensure that it is the right project and that the correct amount of money and no more should be spent on it. The rest of the money that British Rail has available should be spent on projects that are desperately needed to provide jam today, not tomorrow, for the commuters who are paying British Rail for the services it offers today.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has for some time been against the original fast rail link through Kent and south London, and we have learnt tonight that he is against the current project, apparently because he believes that all British Rail's money should be spent on saving his neck by improving the lousy commuter service that his constituents have had to tolerate for 13 years of Tory misrule—to use a well-known phrase from a couple of decades back. Which projects should British Rail propose and where will it find the money to pay for them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will resist the temptation to depart from the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Gale: I certainly will, but I shall correct one error of fact in the statement of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. I have never opposed the fast link from Kent, which does not run through my constituency. Those of us who live in north-east Kent have always believed that there should be a fast link, and we have been perfectly happy for it to go through south London, to where our constituents who will benefit from the link wish to travel. I am on record as having said that on many occasions in the House—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East spent more time listening and less time intervening from a sedentary position, he might hear what Conservative Members have to say, some of which is not entirely contradictory to what he wants.
I want the link to be built and the priorities to be right. A couple of years ago, British Rail spent millions of pounds building a link between London and Stansted airport that currently carries virtually no passengers. I am not saying that that link is not necessary or will not be necessary at some time in the future, but the-priority must be to serve the passengers who are paying now. I believe that the money should be spent now on the services used

now, and we must ensure that the planning is right so that the terminus is built in the right place. If that place proves to be Stratford East, that is where the terminus should go. But it should not be built somewhere simply because a Bill is lying on the table. The arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury carry much weight and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East would do well to give them slightly more attention.

Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) referred to the issue of management and targeted his criticism at the management of British Rail. I am not in a position to defend British Rail, but when we analyse the problems with commuter services in the south-east and the problems that British Rail faces in general, we must remember that they are caused because the Government will not allow British Rail to introduce the schemes that it wants, including electrification of other lines, in order to improve services. The position with the Bill is similar.
One of the reasons why I pressed the Minister to give an assurance about the link between Stratford and King's Cross is that it is feared that money will not be available to build the link. Several hon. Members have said that £1·25 billion has to be found for the King's Cross development and that other resources must be found for other British Rail projects connected with the channel tunnel. When we examine cost, I remind the House that it is not 12 months since we heard a statement from the Dispatch Box that the Government had found £4·5 billion to prop them up on the poll tax. So money can be found when the Government feel that it is necessary for them to sustain their vote throughout the country.
If the Government are sincere about the Bill, they should not hesitate to give assurances to the House and the country that the money will be found to ensure that a link will be provided and that services will be available to the communities in the regions, and particularly the north, from the channel tunnel.
When the Secretary of State announced in August this year the route that would be followed by the high-speed link, it was a tremendous disappointment to the local authorities and consortiums in the north of England that the link would come from the east through Stratford to King's Cross. That decision created tremendous doubt about whether facilities will be made available to service the regions north of London. Such doubts exist in Yorkshire and Humberside, which I know best, and in other northern and western areas.
I do not apologise for raising the matter on more than one occasion in interventions and again in my own speech. We want assurances from the Government. I said earlier that the debate seemed to be developing into a north-south divide. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) made the comments that he did. The Bill affects many of his constituents. Other hon. Members intervened and I thought that the debate was developing along "them and us" or north-south lines. I hope that the decision taken tonight will be to the benefit of the whole nation.
In the north we consider that King's Cross is needed nationally. It is an important facility for international passenger services to the north of England and the other regions beyond London. I sometimes feel that north of


Watford does not matter in debates in the House. Several hon. Members from the north have stressed tonight, with all the determination that we can bring to bear, the need for the northern region to be considered in this development.
The Bill should be accepted by the House because King's Cross will be the key terminal linking the north of England with the channel tunnel. We would prefer, of course, a direct link from the towns and cities of the north straight through to the channel tunnel, but that cannot be achieved. The best alternative is the King's Cross terminal.
We plead with the House to allow the Bill to take its course and reach the statute book. It would allow international trains to run directly into the key main lines beyond London. We are pleased with the services from west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire which terminate at King's Cross. This Bill will directly link such services to the channel tunnel and on to Europe.
The development at King's Cross will provide an excellent interchange for passengers from the north and the regions beyond London. The north of England, the midlands, Scotland, Wales and Ireland will be served well by the facilities at the new interchange.
We want a fast link between the north and south of this country. If the construction at King's Cross goes ahead with the fast lines from the north meeting the high-speed link to the channel tunnel, that will be ideal.
Given a fair wind the development could go ahead with minimum delay. The powers allowing the construction are being dealt with already and, as I have said, King's Cross will provide excellent access to London.
I offer my wholehearted support to the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury for accuratge environmental assessments. They must be correct down to the last detail, in the interests of those who will be affected and in the interests of the project. People need to be satisfied that the environmental assessments for King's Cross and the high-speed link are accurate.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman said that he suppports the wish of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for a good environmental assessment. If such an assessment demonstrates that the site is not suitable, will he still support his hon. Friend?

Mr. O'Brien: The environmental assessment will be submitted along with the planning application. It is up to the people considering the planning application to deliver a judgment on the assessment. I consider the hon. Gentleman's remarks a little premature. He may oppose this measure but he should not pre-empt the results of the environmental assessment. Environmental assessments are important and they should be truthful and comprehensive. I feel sure that we shall get such an assessment.
The Government must be pressed to accept the British Rail view that the link is needed within the next six or seven years. The Government's announcement suggested a possible date beyond 2000 and said that it could be delayed up to 2005. That is totally unsatisfactory. The Government must co-operate with British Rail and should give the programme full support because it is important to every region in the country.
Given the right resources and planning, the King's Cross project in association with Thameslink 2000 will improve rail links between Kent, Sussex and Hampshire

and the north-east of England and will allow travellers from one region to visit the other with only a single change at King's Cross. The development will allow passengers from Yorkshire, Humberside, the north-east and Scotland to travel to the south-east and to Europe with one change at King's Cross. Because of its importance for passenger services and the economic development of the northern region, we ask the House to support the project.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I support the motion and I bring to the House the support of the North-West Channel Tunnel Group, which consists of a vast range of north-west commercial interests, and of the North of England Regional Consortium, which consists of many local authorities from the north of England. We say that the proposed second international passenger terminal at King's Cross is essential to the development of the north-west of England. It avoids peripherality and is essential for major passenger contact with the mainland of Europe.
I agree with the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that if the fast link goes through the east of Kent it should not finish at Stratford; it must come to King's Cross. Through services must be provided via King's Cross to the west coast main line to serve the north-west of England. In that way fast passenger links to the north-west will be available shortly after the tunnel is opened. We look forward to the arrival of trains from Europe which will stop at King's Cross and then travel to termini in the north-west at Manchester or Liverpool. Those trains will travel on to Glasgow and, we hope, beyond.
I strongly emphasise the importance of the scheme to people in the north-west. I have pressed for better freight links, which is another argument, but we must start with a reasonably fast passenger link to Europe. The rival proposals for Stratford are totally unacceptable. The first problem is that Stratford is totally dependent upon the construction of the fast link to the tunnel via the east coast and Kent. If that is not built, Stratford will be useless. In the short term, King's Cross is already there and the links to it exist so that, from the start of the operation of the tunnel, people from the north can go into Europe, stopping at King's Cross, changing trains without difficulty.
Stratford is also badly connected to the United Kingdom's railway geography, with inferior capability for through international trains to the north-west and other regions beyond London. It has no existing direct links to the tunnel and could not function until a high-speed rail link was built, and that could be as late as the next century. Stratford is a total non-starter.

Mr. Dobson: Is it not the case that the connections to the tunnel will be in existence long before the scheme before the House can be completed or, knowing the way British Rail manages to cock things up, probably before it starts digging any of the soil?

Mr. Hind: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He must bear in mind that, for the north-west, the interim proposal of Waterloo is not acceptable either. The sooner that the terminal at King's Cross is built, the better for the


north-west. Even before the main fast link to the tunnel, via Stratford has been built, the proposals in the Bill will have been implemented.
The Stratford terminal serves London poorly. King's Cross is in a central position with easy access to the centre of London. People from Europe will want to come directly to the centre, so King's Cross would bring greater benefits from tourism.
I commend the Bill to the House. It will bring the north-west of England major advantages. We must have the proposals in it, so I hope that all my hon. Friends will support the motion.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I support the carry-over motion, as does the midland main line consortium, which is made up of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire county councils and Sheffield city council. They believe, as I believe, that if the Bill goes ahead, it will give much stronger grounds for electrification. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) and I tabled an amendment linking the motion to the electrification of the main line from St. Pancras to Sheffield.
My short contribution will centre on the spur link set out as work No. 5 of schedule 1, between the midland main line and the old Great Northern line, and on the importance of speedy electrification of that line.
The evidence from the consortium that supports the Bill is that electrification would meet the 8 per cent. return on investment requirement of British Rail immediately. Given the importance to the region of such a project, and the facts that 90 per cent. of businesses in the region use the line and that it would take seven years to electrify from the date of commitment, it is essential that this project is linked into the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his hint of a commitment to electrify the line within the next 10 years. I draw his attention to the fact that a private consortium, the Central Railway Group, is proposing to build a private line on the old great central railway from the channel tunnel up through Buckinghamshire to Leicester. If it can raise a vast amount of capital— £1·8 billion—and believes that it is worth while to do so, surely it is possible for British Rail to commit the £100 million that is needed to electrify the main line. I say to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member is trying to keep in order, but he must direct his remarks to the Bill and the revival motion.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The last thing that I want to do is stray out of order. May I draw your attention, however, to work No. 5, which is about
a railway commencing in the London borough of Islington by a junction with the Great Northern Railway at a point immediately below the southern portal of the western bore of Copenhagen tunnel"? 
That is the very point to which I am referring. If electrification is linked to the spur line, it will not be necessary for me to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) had to do only recently, which was to get the chairman of British Rail to

attend another terminus in London and to make quite a row in order for some action to be taken. I am beginning to wonder whether it will be necessary to get the chairman to come to St. Pancras before we can elicit the funds for the project. A few days after the action that was taken by my right hon. Friend, a magic wand was waved and somehow money was found to improve the Southend line.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to the arguments that have been deployed against the reopening of the Snow Hill tunnel. That is the Thameslink line, which is a part of the Bill and which has been referred to this evening. British Rail argued long and hard that it was not possible to open it. When it was opened, British Rail argued that it was important because it would not be necessary to improve the lines around London. British Rail should consider again the arguments for electrification of the midland main line. If it goes ahead with the project, it will find that it has a reward for the investment that exceeds its wildest dreams.

Mr. Waller: With the leave of the House, I wish to say a few words in reply.
I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced both for and against the revival of the Bill. Despite the length of one or two of the contributions of Labour Members, I do not think that they matched the significance of other speeches. I have heard strong arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House for continuing with the Bill, in the interests of Londoners and in the national interest. If we are talking about a rail infrastructure that is suitable for the next century, we must have in mind the sort of measure that is the subject of the debate. I am confident that the House will support the motion. I ask it to do so to enable the Bill to be revived in the form——

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waller: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I ask the House to support the motion.

Mr. Dobson: I had not intended to contribute to the debate but the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who introduced the motion, was asked several questions during his introductory speech and he failed stoically to produce any answers. We wanted to know—
Mr. Waller rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting


of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the last Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.

To be communicated to the Lords and their concurrence desired thereto.

Orders of the Day — Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and 
(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. David Hunt.]

10 pm

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I rise to draw to the attention of the House the considerable significant public expenditure consequences of the Bill. For a long time and in so many previous debates, it has been difficult to obtain information on that aspect from any source, but particularly from Government sources. The money resolution provides a good opportunity to explore in some detail what will be the financial consequences of allowing the Bill to proceed.
I welcome the public Bill in one narrow, specific respect. It at least makes an honest instrument of the last Bill. The private Bill that has been promoted for the last two to three years could not be considered private legislation when it came to the question of its financial consequences. It had significant public expenditure consequences, but because it was introduced as a private Bill, almost no one took responsibility to explain to the House in any detail, or with any certainty, its public expenditure consequences.
Given that the Government have adopted the Bill now before the House, and given that the name of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury appears on it, I had hoped that we would receive a detailed explanation of its public expenditure consequences. Earlier, I interrupted the Secretary of State for Wales in the hope that he would be able to provide the House with such an explanation. We heard only one perfunctory sentence at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to the effect that he would give more money to the development corporation— £22 million, making £130 million over three years. That is the sum total of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of a Bill that has significant public expenditure consequences.
I do not believe that the House should let the money resolution go through without endeavouring to explore further the Bill's financial implications. It is even more astonishing that we should be asked to approve this money resolution, when one realises that the carry-over motion that has just been passed touched on the channel tunnel—which involves two major Bills that the Government said would have no public expenditure implications.
Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the channel tunnel, it represents a huge item of public infrastructure of international consequences. The Bill that made it possible forbade any public expenditure to arise from that project. The King's Cross Railways Bill, part of the debate on which I just heard by accident, also has attached to it Government statements to the effect that it will have no public expenditure consequences.
Yet a large sum of public money is to be devoted to a high-class private project comprising a marina incorporating high-class residential and commercial accommodation. Many of my hon. Friends could have an interesting discussion about the merits of the barrage if it were the


subject of a private Bill. It is anything but private, in that it will be wholly dependent upon public expenditure to make it work.
It is a curious fact that some of the driest support in terms of the people who trooped through the Lobby, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—who is not renowned for his "wet" views in the spectrum of the Conservative party—will also be supporting a Bill that will have public expenditure consequences of the kind and character that I seek to clarify. If nothing else, we should know the Bill's financial consequences before agreeing to the money resolution. We have not received such an explanation yet—certainly not from the Secretary of State this evening.
Apart from the money attached to the Bill, and the reference in the Bill to the money that will flow from it, we know of the broader public expenditure involved—what is known as the barrage-related public expenditure. We know, for example, that 1·5 miles of a road that is an intrinsic part of the scheme will cost more than £90 million. It will go down in history as one of the most expensive roads in Britain, but it is part and parcel of the Butetown link. It is not envy, surely, that prompts me to compare the cost with that of building the Conwy tunnel.
We have been given some amazing figures relating to jobs. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) must be the most gullible Member in the House; like the Under-Secretary of State, he trotted out the figures for what must have been propaganda reasons. I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State accepts the truth of those figures, but if the experts can actually forecast to a square metre—almost to a job—the consequences of investment in the scheme, the Government should immediately employ them in the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board and the Welsh Office. They appear to be better at the job than the National Audit Office.

Mr. Alun Michael: As local authorities have discovered over the years, presenting precise job creation figures requires some care.
My hon. Friend has referred to the importance of the road. I have worked in the Butetown area through which the road passes. Butetown is one of the most deprived areas in Wales, by any criterion. Does my hon. Friend accept that the decision to make the road a cut and cover road, thus ensuring that the two halves of Butetown will be united rather than divided, is one of the most positive community decisions that could have been made, regardless of the cost?

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I feel that we should acquaint the House with the enormous expenditure consequences. The expenditure may indeed be justifiable, but many roads divide many communities, and many such developments may be environmentally sensitive. I do not think that expenditure of £60 million a mile has been involved before. I do not quarrel with my hon. Friend; I am merely explaining the physical cost of carrying out such an important piece of social engineering.

Mr. Michael: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. I think that we agree about the importance of such roads, whether they are in Cardiff, in the valleys or in rural

communities. My point is that such road building, although it may have a positive result, is not relevant to or dependent on the development of the barrage. The calculations of the House and the Treasury lead to the inclusion of the money in the financial memorandum; in fact, it is not related to either the barrage or the developments that are dependent on it.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend continues to educate me on a host of issues. However, whatever the money relates to, and however it is accounted for, it adds up to £60 million a mile, which is a lot to spend on road building in any community. If expenditure involves the language of priorities, we must consider the consequences of building a road at that cost. We need a public expenditure remit. When the Bill is considered in Committee, we need to know the expenditure commitments.
What is the grand total of barrage-related expenditure? In earlier debates, the Cardiff bay barrage-related expenditure was agreed to be £547 million, the Welsh Office share being £335 million. That figure was agreed in February of this year. We have been told that this expenditure will create very many jobs. Earlier I made the point that the sooner we have these advisers, if they are so good, in the Welsh Office, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board and elsewhere, the better.
I did not intend to deride WIDAB or Welsh Office estimates, but when selective financial assistance and investment grants are given it is almost impossible to attach the number of jobs created to such sums of money. The National Audit Office told us only what we already knew—that there is a great difference between job creation figures and investment. I accept that; it has been part and parcel of our lives for the last 20 or 30 years and more. I do not wish to rub noses in it, but a great deal of the National Audit Office's analysis is fairly superficial. I do not therefore rest my case on that basis. We ought not, however, to be gullible and accept figures down to the last square metre and the last office worker job that will be created. We should not accept them as conclusive proof that all sense of financial accountability must be abandoned.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether we are still talking about barrage-related development amounting to £547 million. Furthermore, will £335 million of the £547 million fall on the Welsh Office vote? When we last debated the matter, we were told that the Cardiff bay barrage costs amounted to £125·55 million. When the Bill was originally published, that figure was about £82 million. I accept that additional expenditure has been added to it as a result of arguments that have been put forward both in the House and elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figure is still £125·55 million? If so, how does that figure square with the financial effects listed in the Bill?
Three figures are referred to in the explanatory and financial memorandum: £113 million for the cost of constructing the barrage, £2·5 million for acquisition of land and rights, and £37 million for groundwater and water quality protective provisions. That amounts to a total of £152 million. Is that figure equivalent to the quoted figure of £125 million? I see that the Minister nods his head. In other words, since we last discussed the Bill, costs have increased by £25 million. When we debate the Bill in, say, July, will the figure have increased again? Should we consider merely inflation, or will additional


costs be incurred? What are we buying under the money resolution? We have witnessed fantastic increases under a Government who are supposed to be prudent. They do not want to spend a penny on the channel tunnel or on the King's Cross Railways Bill, yet they have happily agreed to a further £25 million being spent on the Bill.
The Secretary of State did not explain the financial consequences of the Bill. I am a good amateur historian —one needs to be with this Bill because it has a good historical pedigree. If I remember rightly—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will correct me if I do not—the original net operating loss of the barrage was estimated to be about £400,000 a year. After all the yachtsmen had paid their fees and moored their boats, after houses had been built and after this wonderful scheme was operating, lo and behold there would be an operational loss of £400,000. I remember the debate vividly because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth told me that that was nothing compared with how much we spent on maintaining parks in Cardiff.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend define "loss"?.

Mr. Rowlands: The "Financial effects" section of the Bill states that
the annual cost of operating the barrage … will be a net £1·6 million a year.

Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that the word "loss" contains an element of criticism and that public expenditure on something that is worthwhile should not be defined as a loss?

Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend accept the word "deficit"? If the word "loss' is loaded, I shall use "deficit".
We originally debated the £400,000 deficit that would be borne by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and then, presumably, by the poll tax payers of the city. We were then told that the operational deficit was £1·3 million. The "Financial effects" of the Bill mention a net deficit of £1·6 million. We have moved from a net deficit of £400,000 a year to one of £1·6 million a year. It is reasonable for me to say—this is riot the politics of envy—that the deficit was originally estimated at £400,000 a year, then £1·3 million a year and now it is £1·6 million a year. If the bill were borne by the people of Cardiff, it would be up to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others who represent Cardiff to come to terms with their electorates. It is not for me to quarrel with an operating deficit of £1·6 million if it is to be paid by the people of Cardiff. The Bill states:
These costs will be borne by the Secretary of State.
The costs will be borne not by the people of Cardiff but by the Welsh Office, presumably through a grant to Cardiff Bay development corporation. The money will come from the Treasury.
The Bill does not say that the costs will be borne for one, five or 10 years, there is an indefintie commitment. There are rumours that the period could be 20 years. We are asked to endorse in principle expenditure by the Welsh Office of £335 million out of £546 million, another £152 million through Cardiff Bay development corporation and a net operating deficit of £1·6 million for an indefinte period.
Leaving aside the Bill's principles, objectives and merits, Welsh Members, who often have arguments with

the Welsh Office about various kinds of public expenditure, have a right to ask questions and to confirm figures, as I am trying to do.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend help me? He gave a long list of the charges that will eventually be borne by the taxpayer or the Treasury, but he did not mention the other side of the equation—the income that will accrue to the development corporation and other interested organisations such as Associated British Ports.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) gave a long list of the benefits that will result from building the barrage as opposed to not building it. One benefit is the enhanced finance that will accrue to the interested parties —the development corporation and ABP, who are extensive landowners in the area. My hon. Friend is saying that, if there is a deficit, the costs will fall on the taxpayer. Let us suppose that there is a profit. What will happen to it? Will ABP pay anything towards the costs which my hon. Friend mentioned?

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important issue. In a previous debate, I asked whether repayments would be made to the Welsh Office if enormous profits were made. At the moment, I am interested in a narrower point to which the financial resolution binds us. Are we to accept a scheme leading to a £1·6 million deficit which will be borne by the Welsh Office year in, year out if the deficit continues as expected?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) raised an important issue in relation to Associated British Ports. Am I right in saying that, when we were dealing with a private Bill, ABP could say, "As petitioners, we will do what we can to delay the Bill unless our requirements are met"? Therefore, if there is a benefit for Associated British Ports—and there is—the fault lies not with ABP for seeing the opportunities but with the private Bill system which has, in effect, held the city of Cardiff as well as the Welsh Office to ransom because the development could not proceed without the agreement of the petitioners at that time. It is one of the ironies that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is raising some important issues, but had we not had to go through the private Bill procedure but been able to deal straight away with the hybrid Bill that we are now debating, such issues would have been on the surface. Instead, they have been dealt with and decided during the course of the private Bill procedure.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend raises some profound questions, but I suspect that if I pursued them I might go beyond the financial resolution that we are now debating.
I am concerned merely to identify the public expenditure consequences of the Bill as we are being asked to agree to the financial resolution. I have drawn to the House's attention what I believe to be interesting and fascinating circumstances. They are not unique because there are precedents and I am sure that the Minister will have a stack of them. He had better, because I want chapter and verse. How many other schemes in Wales is the Welsh Office currently financing with an unlimited commitment on an operational deficit, year in and year out? I should love to know.
I know a great deal about and understand the capital expenditure grants that Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney


receives through the agency for its land clearance schemes. I understand the modest amounts that we receive under three-year urban aid schemes. There are often tens of thousands stretched over three years and they are accompanied by the strict notion that any costs, burdens and deficits of the society, community, organisation, community centre or swimming pool, or whatever, will at the end of that period be borne by the community's tax payers, not by the Welsh Office.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary a specific question before we approve the resolution. Will he list the other schemes for which the Welsh Office has committed itself to such an operational deficit in expenditure every year? I should be grateful for that information. As I said, I have examples on my own patch. We understand capital expenditure extremely well and we know that it is funded from the Welsh Office. That involves a one-off, large-scale investment to transform the infrastructure of our society and our community.
I thought that this Government, more than any other, were never willing to commit themselves for any length of time to covering operational deficits. I thought that operational deficits were dirty words to them, whatever we think about them. I thought that they were dirty words according to the Government's philosophy, but the financial effects of the Bill, which many Conservatives have trooped in to support, would involve a £1·6 million operational deficit. The tab will be picked up not by the yachtsmen who moor their boats in the area or by the developers whose investments will increase, and not even by the people of Cardiff who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, keep their parks and recreation areas well, but by the taxpayers of Wales, by the Treasury and the Welsh Office.
How many more schemes can we introduce which will allow operational deficits to be carried indefinitely by the Secretary of State? That is an extremely serious and interesting consequence. Why should the Secretary of State bear the operational deficits of such a scheme? Why from the start did not the Government take the line that if we wanted to build a barrage to create the marina and the rest, and if the scheme was so good, the cost should be raised by the private sector? The public infrastructure of much of the docklands redevelopment should be a mixture of private and public investment. That is the equivalent of what Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney are doing with land reclamation schemes.
If we came along with such a fanciful scheme, expected large capital expenditure and said that the consequence would be a £1·6 million deficit every year, what reaction would we have got from a Tory Secretary of State? I am willing to be educated. If the Secretary of State will give us a list of equivalent schemes for which the Welsh Office is financing operational losses of that order for a period that is unknown, I am willing to decide whether we should endorse the expenditure required under the resolution. My questions are more than justifiable when we are asked to pass the money resolution.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May I help my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) by giving one example of a scheme which will

never run into profit, but which will be financed out of public funds? It is the London docklands light railway extension—[Interruption.] Let me finish. We were told by the Secretary of State that it would be financed by the Treasury. I have spent the past few painful months chairing the Committee on the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham etc.) Bill. The scheme is going forward and it will not, in the foreseeable future, make a profit.
I am not as surprised by the way in which the Thatcherite philosophy seems to be expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney as I am by the more enlightened philosophy coming through, which says that one does not have to make a profit on each scheme. To talk about deficits or profits on a scheme such as the Cardiff bay barrage is like asking people to make a profit on the library service, on opera or on art. We do not believe that society should be organised with profit as the prime virtue. That was the grave error of the past 12 dark years of Thatcherism. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney does not accept that some schemes are so important and of such universal benefit—in this case, for the inhabitants of Cardiff and of Wales generally—that they are worth considering as eligible for public money at some point.

Mr. Rowlands: I accept my hon. Friend's interesting observations, but I will make two points. First, the Bill is introduced by the Government. Secondly, even my hon. Friend will agree that we must make some comparison between the marina scheme being suggested, and essential developments for libraries and for the culture of our whole community. There is a great deal of difference between the two.

Mr. Flynn: I remind my hon. Friend that there is celebration in heaven over one sinner doing penance. The Government's act of penitence on the scheme is to be welcomed.
I can speak with some knowledge of Cardiff because I was born there and I lived in the area for the first 30 years of my life. Some people from outside the area have a false idea of it and of the people who will benefit from the scheme. We have heard talk of the boat owners and the yuppies moving in. There was an area close to where I lived in Cardiff called Madras street and Thomas street which was destroyed in a slum clearance programme. We did not regard them as slums; we thought that it was a vibrant, robust and tough community full of strong personalities. When the area was knocked down, the people were decanted to a block of flats called Channel View at the end of Channel View road. Most of them have stayed there and have not come back to the new and much improved homes that have been built. Those people are definitely not yuppies. They are very much part of Cardiff because they have lived there and have their roots deep in Cardiff, and are part of the tough community in that town.
The rest of the people who will benefit from the barrage have a magnificent view of the great surging tide that comes in—the second highest tide in Europe—which is a moving cliff of water. It offers great drama and excitement. However, for 18 hours a day all that is provided is an unattractive mudscape. The popular view is that people would prefer to live by an area of reflective water. People find that an attractive sight, as is proved in Baltimore and throughout the world.
If one analyses how the money will be spent, one discovers that just one fifth of it will be spent on the barrage. I note with great pleasure that £95 million will be spent on environmental improvements, because generations of Cardiffians have treated the area in a disgraceful manner. I used to work at the Esso refinery at Victoria wharf and for many years I worked at steelworks in the Cardiff docks. I used to trudge across the area every morning and it was a slum. It was a mixture of old factories and derelict housing. Cardiff had turned its back on the area and it was despised and shunned. For many years its residents had a poor deal. We now have a chance to rejuvenate the area and to create a vast, attractive lake.
People must not be negative about the changes. I welcome the large amount of money that will be spent on water treatment. When I was a boy, the Taff, at the height of summer when there was a low flow down river, consisted of nothing but coal slurry and sewage. The Taff was virtually an open sewer; it was a disgrace. Since then, however, it has been cleaned up enormously. One could not impound the water as it is now—it must be subjected to further improvements. We now have sophisticated means of cleaning up water, particularly if it is impounded. One can use different methods, for example, phosphate stripping, to clean, manage and maintain the water.
A lake in Austria recently won an international award. A few years ago people would not swim in it because of the quality of the water. That water, after expensive treatment, is now fit to drink straight from the lake. We can ensure that the water in the Cardiff bay, which will be at the heart of the system, will be pure.
Mention has been made of the Butetown link road to Grangetown. That essential road should have been built years ago. It will cross difficult terrain and I am delighted that the Government are to use public money on its construction, as they have on other imaginative schemes in Wales.
I was sorry to note in the Second Reading debate some of the comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), although he did admit that they were based on the experience of his grandfather, who had lived in Cardiff some years ago. The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of the Bill in principle, although I note that he did not say that the entire Liberal party was in favour. However, I have heard murmurs of approval from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells).
The Bill is important not just to Cardiff, but to Wales. Cardiff is our capital city and the Bill will transform an area that has long been derelict. The centre of the docks has already been largely metamorphosised, but there is a long way to go. The money for the Bill represents a good investment for Cardiff and Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): In the six minutes left, I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised in this interesting money resolution debate.
The money resolution would authorise the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the Secretary of State which would arise as a consequence of the Bill, if enacted. It covers both expenses arising directly from the provisions of the Bill and those arising out of any other enactments attributed to the Bill.
The costs covered by the resolution therefore include the costs of constructing the works set out in schedule I to the Bill, at £113 million; the costs of acquiring land for the project under part II of the Bill and compensating land owners affected by the project, at £2·5 million; the costs of carrying out the surveys of buildings, the remedial work by the development corporation and the payment of compensation in respect of the groundwater protection scheme, at £37 million; and the cost of operating the barrage and managing the inland bay and lagoon at £1·6 million.
Schedules 2 and 6 allow the Secretary of State to recover from the development corporation costs incurred in relation to the survey or examination of tidal works or sites on which it is proposed to execute tidal works, and expenditure incurred in the repair or removal of the tidal structure where the development corporation has failed to comply with the notice requiring it to carry out such repairs or removals. As those matters are related to navigation, they will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
It will be helpful if I explain how those figures relate to those that arose during earlier debates. The detailed letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 13 December 1990 set out fully the earlier figures, and copies of that letter were placed in the Library. The total cost of the construction, land acquisition and protection provisions is £152·5 million. The equivalent figure in my letter to the hon. Gentleman was £125·55 million. The main reason for the difference is an allowance for inflation and design changes in the barrage and lagoon. The figure of £152·5 million is the expenditure that arises directly from the Bill's provisions; it is what Parliament would be approving in passing the Bill.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked several questions, the first of which related to financial effects and inflation. The money resolution states:

"(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and
"(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund."

It allows for the figures to increase as the costs increase due to inflation or during the passage of the Bill, perhaps in the Select Committee hearing. No Government who are willing to listen to what is said by the Select Committee and Mr. Roy Stoner and to take account of other factors that affect the Bill as it passes through the House can ignore that part of the resolution.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the sum of £547·29 million, which is the total figure for the redevelopment strategy at mid 1989–90 prices, based on the Cardiff bay barrage planning update and economic appraisal statement made in January 1990. It includes £125·5 million for the barrage, £148 million for infrastructure site preparation, £152 million for the improved access, £95·89 million for environmental improvements and £25 million for the people draw facilities—entertainment and leisure facilities that draw people into the district. Of that money, £335 million is the public sector cost to the local authorities and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and £237 million of that will come from the development


corporation. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can see that considerable sums are being provided by the Government towards the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was worried about the £1·6 million operating cost. That must be seen in context of the total sum that the Government and private industry are providing towards the redevelopment of the Cardiff bay district. The ratio of private to public money spent on the scheme will be 1:7. The total value is between £1·5 billion and £2 billion and the project will provide 25,000 jobs.
The hon. Gentlemen spent a considerable portion of his speech on the £1·6 million that he alleged would be the deficit on the running costs of Cardiff bay. He should remember what the £1·6 million involves. That figure is currently in the Bill, but we are looking to the corporation to carry out a number of activities that will help to recoup part of that sum. The net operating costs of the inland lake will be met by the development corporation during its lifetime, as will maintenance and capital replacement costs.
However, the corporation is considering several options to provide revenue to cover the operating costs on a longer-term basis. They include, first, levelling charges on residential and non-residential property in the bay area; secondly, placing property owned by the corporation into

a managed portfolio designed to provide an annual lease or rent income; thirdly, the transfer of a cash endowment from the corporation into a managed fund designed to provide the necessary annual income and capital growth; and lastly, the possibility of creating a trust fund into which assets and capital growth income can be transferred from the corporation and which will provide an annual income. That last option is currently being discussed with the corporation.
So there is a clear financial memorandum set out in the Bill. We have £547 million total expenditure on the redevelopment strategy. We have the £335 million which will come from public funds, whether from the Cardiff Bay development corporation or local authorities and the £1·6 million towards the cost of operating the inland lake. Those figures should reassure the House, and I ask the House to accept the money resolution.

It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and
(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.

Orders of the Day — Library Charges

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move,
That the draft Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations 1991, which were laid before the House on 22nd July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
There have been many changes in libraries since the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. This debate, to which I have been looking forward with keen anticipation, is the result of some of the changes and of the need constantly to improve services. It is a debate not about a good service or a bad service but about how to make a good service even better.
By removing minor anomalies, the regulations will help to give library authorities greater flexibility, opportunity and possibility to develop new services. It will allow them the freedom to charge for more services, without affecting the basic, free traditional service. In effect, the regulations will help to improve the service to the reader and allow authorities to make better use of their resources.
Let me give the House a bit of history. Section 8(1) of the 1964 Act prohibits library authorities in England and Wales from charging anyone other than another library authority for library facilities, except as provided for by that section. Section 154 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 amends section 8 of the 1964 Act and empowers the Lord President of the Council and the Secretary of State for Wales to specify in regulations which library facilities provided by library authorities may be charged for. The regulations will replace the limited charging powers that library authorities presently have, which are set out in section 8(2) to section 8(5) of the 1964 Act.
Before drawing up the regulations, we invited library authorities to let us know which facilities they charged for or might wish to charge for in future. The results showed that services are already provided on library premises which go beyond those which could strictly be defined as library facilities. These include specialised information services, graphic design services, desk-top publishing facilities and translation services.
Those services fall outside the scope of the prohibition in section 8(1) of the 1964 Act. Thus the regulations, which give exceptions from that prohibition, do not deal with them. That is not to say that those services cannot continue to be provided on library premises. But they are services provided by local authorities under other powers and not as library authorities.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am interested in the line of the Minister's thoughts. He seems to be about to announce that he intends to give freedom to library authorities to decide the way in which they operate. If the Minister does not mind my saying so, I seem to have heard that before somewhere. Will he make any assumptions as a result of the regulations about how library authorities can generate income when he considers the financial support that they need?

Mr. Renton: I suppose that I must thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to my argument as a line of thought, but it is not a line of thought: it is a textual explanation of the regulations. I do not intend to make any assumptions about the amount of additional income local

authorities may raise from these regulations, because it is at their discretion to decide whether to use these powers. These are merely enabling regulations.

Mr. Michael: Even if the Minister does not make such assumptions, will not Ministers responsible for local government finance make assumptions about the income that can be generated? Will he assure us that his colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will not make assumptions and will leave these matters to be decided freely by local authorities?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is making a Welsh mountain out of a small molehill. When we looked into this matter, we found that about 80 per cent. of the library authorities that we consulted said that they used the income that they generated from these charges to add to their services in other areas. The money is therefore beneficial to them.
The regulations have been drawn up to cover only those library facilities made available by the library authorities in the course of carrying out their functions under section 7 of the 1964 Act. In February 1988 my office published the Green Paper "Financing our Public Library Service: Four Subjects for Debate", which, among other things, proposed to remove anomalies and inconsistencies in library authorities' present powers to charge.
This was followed by a six-month public consultation period. Similarly, the draft regulations were sent out for comment in September 1990 to representatives of those responsible for or with an interest in the administration and operation of the public library service in England and Wales. The final draft was prepared after all the views expressed during the three-month consultation period had been fully considered.
It was as a result of this consultative process that I decided, for example, to remove the upper limit of £1·50 on reservation charges.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister says that the changes in the final draft were made after the full period of consultation. Did any of the library authorities—or the Library Association, or the Library Campaign—consulted during that period ask him to remove the £1·50 charge?

Mr. Renton: I know that the Library Association issued some notes—no doubt the hon. Gentleman will draw on them during his speech—in which it opposed the removal of the limit. But most of the chief librarians whom we consulted, through their association known as FOLACL —the Federation of Local Authority Chief Librarians—felt strongly that authorities should be able too exercise discretion with reservation charges, just as they do for other charges. They therefore favour the abolition of the limit—

Mr. Fisher: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to name the chief librarians in question, and the authorities that they represent? What he has said will cause great surprise in the library world. If the right hon. Gentleman claims that this view was taken, he should name the people who took it.

Mr. Renton: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not done his homework properly. A majority of chief librarians, through their association FOLACL, thought that the maximum charge should not remain.
I shall in a moment specify the facilities for which library authorities will be empowered to charge, but first I want to remind the House of an important safeguard for free access to the library service which we have built into the provisions of the 1964 Act, as substituted by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
We have excluded from the scope of the enabling power two main elements which are generally regarded as traditional free public library services: the borrowing by any person living, working or studying full time in the area of an English or Welsh library authority of books, journals and pamphlets available in written form within a library or mobile library of that authority; and the use for reference and consultation purposes of all such materials and microform materials, or any catalogue of the authority's own holdings by any person within library premises of that authority.
This statutory safeguard, which is repeated in the draft regulations, demonstrates our commitment to maintaining the essential, free, traditional public library service. The regulations will replace the limited charging powers presently held by library authorities. They will preserve the existing powers to charge contained in the Act, such as for notification of the availability of a reserved item, for late return of borrowed material and for supplying book catalogues or indexes which become the property of the persons to whom they are supplied.
The regulations will also correct certain anomalies in the existing legislation. Some existing powers are inconsistent or unhelpfully limited. An authority may charge a user for keeping a book or other library material longer than the allowed period, but not for any damage that he has caused to the item. An authority may charge a user the cost of notifying him that the book or other article is available for borrowing, but not the administrative costs of reserving material. It can charge for telling the customer that the item is ready to be borrowed, but not that it is unobtainable or may be consulted only in the reference library. These anomalies are corrected in the regulations.
Finally, the regulations will introduce new charging powers. They will give library authorities power to charge for assistance given by library staff, for example, in conducting research for a user among a library's materials. Many authorities are now asked by individuals and organisations to carry out lengthy research, and it seems right that they should pay for that work. The regulations do not allow a library authority to charge for staff time involved in straightforward inquiries concerned with the provision of the traditional library service, such as where to find a book or a simple reference request.
In addition, the regulations empower charging for assistance or instruction in the use of computers. Since the 1964 Act, computers have played an increasing role in the library service. Libraries use computers to store their catalogues and indexes and process information that is needed for good housekeeping, such as reserving material, recording loans and due dates. The regulations prevent a charge from being made where the computer is required to consult an authority's own catalogues or indexes.
The current section 8 of the 1964 Act allows a library authority to sell only catalogues and indexes. The regulations place no such restrictions on library authorities and they can sell material which they have researched,

collated, produced or copied themselves. The regulations also clarify the power to charge for the borrowing of certain non-print materials and the provision of library services off library premises, for example, to old people's homes and to hospitals.
I repeat that all the powers to charge will, as at present, be discretionary. It will be for each library authority to decide whether to charge for any library facility for which charging is authorised by the regulations. When they do decide to charge, library authorities will be able to decide what they charge and the concessions that they give, taking into account local needs and circumstances. For example, some local authorities may decide not to charge for talking books for those whose sight is impaired, or they may exempt children and the elderly from reservation charges. Such matters will be for local authorities to decide. The draft regulations will provide that any charges which are to be imposed must be displayed on library premises.
There is no question of the regulations heralding the privatisation of the public library service. This is not so. Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, library authorities have a duty to provide public library services, and they will continue to have a duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. I intend to monitor charging levels. All library authorities will be contacted in two years' time so that we can assess the situation. The intention is to bring section 154 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and these regulations into force on 1 January 1992.
We recognise the importance and popularity of the public library service. It is valued by all sectors of the community, and these regulations reflect the Government's determination to provide authorities with opportunities to develop and improve their library and information services as they deem fit. They are just one of a series of steps that we have taken to help library authorities. Last year, we published a manual on assessing performance in libraries, and we shall shortly be publishing another on public library objectives. We have continued and improved the public library development incentive scheme, and the first awards in the new scheme were announced two weeks ago. We shall thus continue to take steps to make the library service effective, modern and good value for money. The regulations will help in this process, and I commend them to the House.

11 pm

Mr. Mark Fisher: We welcome the regulations. The Minister is right to say that clarification was needed to establish precisely the charging powers of public library authorities and that the anomalies and obscurities in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to be tidied up. In his period of consultation, both on the Green Paper and on these regulations, he will have heard that from librarians, and the Library Association made it clear in its meeting with him in February. They were all glad that, when the Minister met the association, some of the changes to the draft regulations that it suggested—for example, the dropping of charging for the librarians' time—were agreed to. The Minister was right to take its advice and drop that proposal.
Unfortunately, not all the points that professional librarians made to the Minister in consultations have resulted in changes. In spite of what he said, the Library Association feels that the changes in the regulations may


throw up as many obscurities and uncertainties as the provisions of section 8 of the 1964 Act. As the Minister admitted, he made one significant alteration from the draft regulations against the advice of the Library Association and of most librarians. He gave us the source when he spoke of the majority of chief librarians in their professional association, but he needs to explain that rather more.
Not many chief librarians or librarians will find it easy to believe that the majority of those advising the Minister said that the maximum charge should be abandoned. I suspect that all the correspondence that he has had, like all the correspondence that I have had, says the opposite—that this is an unhelpful and rather dangerous thing to do, and that the draft regulations were better when there was a clear maximum charge.
The change that the Minister made is a significant one. He presented it in a reasonable light, saying that it was purely discretionary and that librarians would have freedom to charge. The House will recognise that he is being disingenuous when he presents it in that light. Librarians will be free to charge, but they will be under pressure from the Minister. If they complain about lack of financing and about difficulties, he will have the perfect answer. He will say, "I have given you these powers to increase charges. Do not come to me complaining that you are underfinanced—you have the remedy in your hands. The regulations that I put before Parliament were liberal; they gave you the freedom to solve your own problems. Go away and charge. Don't come wittering to me about not having enough money. You have the remedy in your own hands."
The "freedom" that the Minister has given to library authorities is not entirely what it may seem. He knows well, especially after the events of the past couple of weeks, that many library authorities are short of money. I suspect that he will not hesitate after 1 January 1992 to advise them they should be raising charges to solve their difficulties.
The Minister said in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that the Library Association had said that there was no problem with money and that there was a choice. He will recall that the association's chief executive, George Cunningham, wrote the next day as follows:
I must, with respect, make it emphatically clear that the Library Association has said nothing of the kind that could be interpreted in that sense. On the contrary, as you know from exchanges with our President and otherwise, the Association has stressed the need for more resources to be made available for public libraries. That was the very message that we conveyed to you at our meeting in February, and it has been the gist of many statements made by our President since.
The Minister accepted that he had made a mistake. He answered a question of mine by saying:
I am glad to have the opportunity of correcting a slip of the tongue"—
we all know that such mistakes are easy to make—
when I referred to the Library Association. I intended to quote the report 'Libraries' Choice', which said that the key issue was choice rather than money.
The Minister has admitted his mistake. I suppose that it is easy to confuse a professional association with a magazine. The House may find, however, that it is a rather surreal difficulty of the Minister's not being able to tell the difference between a professional body and a journal. Leaving that aside, it is not clear from the Minister's reply

whether in his apology or his answer to me he admitted that it was not the Library Association that made the remark or whether he admitted that money is an acute concern of library authorities. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to say that he understands that library authorities throughout the country have grave money difficulties.
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the Library Association's survey of April when it examined 78 library authorities, 70 per cent. of which stated that cuts had been made. It is those authorities that will be coming to him and complaining about the financial circumstances that the Government have placed on local authorities, which has led to the cuts.
I suspect that the Minister will be quoting the regulations to the library authorities. In effect, he will say, "Go away and increase your charges." So when Berkshire comes to him as a shire county and says, "We have had to cut £287,000 from our library authority this year", the Minister will say, "Go away and raise charges." When Warwickshire says that it has had to cut—

Mr. John Bowis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Would he preclude charging within the fairly limited range of possibilities that is available within the regulations? Would he restrict the amount to be charged, and if so to what level? If not, will he say precisely what he is complaining about? It appears that he is worried that there will be excessive charges. Is he saying, however, that charges should be possible, and if so to what extent?

Mr. Fisher: I think that I have made it clear to the House, including the hon. Gentleman, if he has been following my argument, that the Opposition believe that the Minister would have been well advised to take the advice of the Library Association and to adhere to the draft regulations, which provided a maximum limit of £1·50. Library authorities would not then have had to go to the maximum, but they would have known the maximum sum that could be charged. Instead, by removing the maximum charge, the Minister has opened the way for much higher charges. When library authorities, such as Berkshire, that have been compelled to make cuts complain to the Minister, he will tell them, "The answer is in your hands." Warwickshire, which cut 12 per cent. of its book fund, may receive exactly the same answer from the Minister.

Mr. Alan Meale: I was grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the scale of charges. He spoke also of the huge cuts forced on library authorities throughout the United Kingdom. Can he say what those cuts in library services mean in real terms? What kind of books are being cut from the curriculum?

Mr. Fisher: The kind of books that will not be bought this year will vary from authority to authority. Berkshire's cuts include a 14 per cent. opening reduction in opening hours—so libraries will be open for shorter hours. Warwickshire's cut of 12 per cent. of its book fund means that it will not provide any national newspapers in its libraries, and will reduce the number of periodicals. When Somerset had to cut £155,000 from its book fund, seven further libraries had to close an additional half-day a


week. Also cut will be the range of books offered—whether to children or young people, or those who have sight problems.
Not just the three shire counties that I cited will be affected. The Library Association survey showed that 70 per cent. of the 78 authorities that replied are making cuts this year. They include Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, and metropolitan districts such as Calderdale, Dudley, Kirklees, Oldham, South Tyneside, Wolverhampton and Walsall. There are present in the Chamber hon. Members whose own authorities have made cuts—and if they visit the libraries in their constituencies, they will come to know what those cuts mean on the shelves.

Mr. Meale: I asked that question of my hon. Friend because I have been contacted by many librarians in the east midlands area, who are fearful that the cuts will affect the provision of children's books and the provision and usage of services to children. I agree with my hon. Friend that such cuts can only lead to fewer services being offered to a group that is most in need.

Mr. Fisher: Nevertheless, the Minister will be quite within his rights to say to such authorities, "In the light of the regulations, you have the answer. You can do something about it. Raise charges. You make a lot of reservations—why not reinforce your book fund by making a profit on them and notifications. That way, you could solve at least some of your problems."
What is behind the Minister's thinking? I am glad that the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), the former Minister for the Arts, is present. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman's speeches and everything that he said about his Green Paper, he would not have abolished the maximum. He saw the need for a maximum charge to prevent exactly the circumstances that I described. I recall that he spoke about his Green Paper a great deal throughout the country, and always stressed the importance of the maximum charge, which was left in the regulations that the present Minister inherited. It was not on advice from his predecessors that the current Minister for the Arts made this change—and, in my view, he was not given such advice by professional librarians, such as those who belong to the Library Association, and certainly not by the Library Campaign—though the Minister is saying that some chief librarians advised him to remove the charge.

Mr. Renton: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman attributes more Machiavellian spirit to me than to my predecessor, my very old right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce). However, the hon. Gentleman forgets two things. There are no maximum charges at present. There is none in the present situation. All that my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham suggested was that there might be a maximum charge of £1·50 only in respect of reservations. He never suggested that there should be charges for all the things for which we are now introducing, or clarifying, the right to charge. I was strongly advised by FOLACL—the Federation of Local Authority Chief Librarians—the other professional organisation, which is in dispute with the Library Association on this issue, that a maximum was not a good idea. I feared that an established maximum of £1·50 would

become a minimum, or a norm. I felt that the local authorities should reach their own conclusions on the appropriate figure to charge for reservations. Flattered as I am to be described as Machiavellian, what the hon. Gentleman has said is rather far from the facts.

Mr. Fisher: I do not know whether that was a slip of the tongue, or whether the Minister is becoming confused, but I do not see how a maximum can become a minimum. I do not think that the Minister meant that. He seems to need some education in basic semantics. It could be a norm, as he suggested; but, by definition, it cannot be a minimum.
In his draft regulations, the Minister's predecessor referred only to reservations, but in England alone there are nearly 7 million reservations a year. If income is increased from the present low levels, there will be considerable potential for an increase in library authorities' income. The Minister says that, to date, there have been no maximum—

Mr. Michael Mates: Maxima.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. and—classically, at least—learned Gentleman.
The reason why there has been no need for a maximum reservation charge in the past is that, until the present Government came along, library authorities were well funded. Our library system was the envy of the world, but, following the cuts that were carried out throughout the 1980s and are still being made, the pressure on library authorities to seek income generation has increased enormously. The Minister and his predecessors have been telling them, in various documents and speeches, to do that and thus to help themselves.
The Minister says that he is flattered by being seen as Machiavellian. His motive is not entirely clear. Is it a matter of principle? Does he believe, like one of his predecessors, Lord Gowrie, that people value things more if they are charged for them? In a not very distinguished speech that Lord Gowrie once made in Ealing, he said that library users would appreciate services more if they had to pay. I do not think, however, that this Minister believes in that principle.
Is it pragmatism? Presumably the Minister did his homework and worked out how many reservations were being made and what income was being generated. A survey carried out last year gave him some idea of the mean income from reservations and he worked out what increased charges might mean for the library authorities. If his reason for abolishing the maximum was the financial benefit for library authorities that he envisaged, he should tell the House about it.
Anticipating our lines of argument, the Minister has tried to deflect comment on what I suspect lies behind the Government's proposals: the changes introduced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the fact that the proposals are part of a process to privatise all or part of public library services. He knows that the Secretary of State for the Environment has added libraries to the list of services that will be considered for compulsory competitive tendering.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the matter that is before the House.

Mr. Fisher: I am trying to establish why there is to be this very significant change. It is important for the House


to understand the motive. I suspect that the motive, in conjunction with increased competitive tendering, is to move towards privatising the public library service.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind, but I am afraid that for him to address these matters does not come within the Standing Orders.

Mr. Meale: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to what is in the motion before the House.

Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend is perfectly correct, because he is replying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot rise on a point of order and start challenging my ruling.

Mr. Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point of order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to debate my ruling with me. I very much hope that he is going to resume his seat.

Mr. Fisher: If I was travelling a little wide, I shall come back within the scope of the regulations. In that the regulations provide the potential for the generation of income, they are related to other Government moves on competitive tendering that will also bring income to the local authorities. All I am doing is responding to what was said by the Minister, who referred to privatisation. I believe that he was correct to raise it as a spectre, but that he was wrong to dismiss it so lightly. I suspect that he did so only because he was embarrassed about it. He knows the dangers of competitive tendering for the public library service. If he has listened to librarians, he probably knows very well that there are no private companies. He told the Library Campaign that he believed that W. H. Smith could probably move in and offer services. I think he knows—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has totally disregarded the advice that I offered to him. I very much hope that he will observe what I said.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was replying to the point the Minister made. When he referred to privatisation he was not ruled out of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no recollection of the Minister referring to privatisation. Had I been aware of it I should have ruled him out of order. I very much hope that we can stick to the matter that is before the House.

Mr. Fisher: Of course I accept your ruling, but when the record is consulted it will show that the Minister referred to privatisation. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) shakes his head, but the Minister must acknowledge that he raised the question of privatisation.

Mr. Renton: It might help if again I put on record what I said. There is no question that the regulations herald the privatisation of the public library service. That is not so. I am delighted to repeat it.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister did raise the question, but sought to deflect it. I believe that he was a little hasty in doing so. That is a shadow which I suspect is worrying librarians and falling over the public library service.
An even more significant problem is the fact that the Minister then referred to what is still free in the public library service. He referred to books and to the use of information material. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will take the opportunity to emphasise that, contrary to much of the tone of the Green Paper and contrary to the tone of what the Minister said this evening, the Government recognise that the public library service is not just a book loan service but is a book and information service. The information side of the public library service is every bit as important as book loans. The Minister referred to the free loan of books and also said that the use of information will be free.
The draft regulations make it clear that charges can be made for research, for collating and for supplying catalogues and library material. The Minister should clear up exactly what is meant by "collating" and "computer", because that is not clear. The regulations mention "apparatus", which is not clearly defined but which will have to be charged for in future.
There are plenty of issues that the Minister should clear up in his circular. In resolving some difficulties, regulation 3(2) throws the net very wide and includes the use of cubicles, research and instruction, which at present are free. I hope that the Minister will say that he hopes that library authorities will continue to supply such services free. Despite the fact that he has introduced regulations giving them the power to charge for those services, I hope that he will say that he believes that it is good practice to provide instruction in the use of equipment free. Once charges for instruction and for using a cubicle are made, the free public library service will disappear.
If a person goes into a small branch library to borrow a book for studying which perhaps has a BBC video accompanying it but the library has neither the book nor the video, the Minister knows very well that that person will be charged for getting the book and video, for reserving them, for being shown how to work the video if he is not used to operating it and perhaps for a cubicle in which to look at the film. Those charges are specified in regulation 3(2). Somebody who asks a branch library for something simple such as a book and video to do studying may be charged for four, five or six different items. The Minister should recognise that that is not unlikely and should say whether that is his intention.
There is a curious omission from charging—activities in libraries. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that they are not covered by the regulations and that they should be provided free. Readings to children, poetry readings, play sessions in holidays, discussions and writers in residences are without the scope of the regulations. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that those imaginative and good services, which the best public libraries offer, are not to be charged for because they are without the regulations and that that is what the Government intend.
The Government's record on public libraries in the past few years has been nothing short of appalling. Library authorities—I have quoted as many Tory-controlled authorities as Labour authorities—are having to cut their book funds and their opening hours. The Minister is giving himself an out. He is telling them, "Increase your charges.


I have removed the maximum. You can now increase your income and solve your problems." That is the reality. I suspect that that is the first move in competitive tendering for more areas of the public library service. The hon. Member for Dulwich shakes his head, but competitive tendering is privatising part of the library service. The Secretary of State for the Environment has said that library services will be suitable for competitive tendering.
Whole parts of the public library service will be privatised. Those services that are not—as covered by the regulations—will be charged for, not up to a maximum amount but to the extent sought by a library authority. A library authority that is pressed will probably have to consider dramatically increasing the prices charged for reserving books and so on to meet its obligations to provide services to the elderly, the disabled and people with poor sight.
The Government's policies cut the public library service. Under the guise of giving freedom to increase charges, the Government are forcing library authorities to increase charges. That is to the Government's discredit. They have one opportunity left: I hope that the Minister will issue a circular interpreting the regulations. I hope that he will make clear the meaning of such definitions as "computer", "collating" and "notifying" and clear up the issue of library activities. The right hon. Gentleman will not be able to clear up the mess that the Government have made of the public library service over the past 12 years. The sooner the Conservatives are out of office, the better.

Mr. George Walden: I am always happy to work myself up into a great cultural stew, given half the chance. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Minister, hoping that he would give me a chance. I am afraid that I could not find anything objectionable in his speech or in the regulations. Being a fair-minded person and still hoping that I had a chance to get a cultural stew going, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), but he did not give me a chance either. I am a little stuck. All that I can do is to agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the regulations and add some comments.
It is a little coy of us not to be frank. We are talking about books versus videos. It is evasive nonsense to talk about the two together. There is a great problem in terms of people reading books; there is no problem about getting people to look at videos. The problem is not in the library service but in the schools. People are not taught to read books. Only now are we confronting the reality of what goes on in our primary schools, which cannot even teach people to read.
The animadversions of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central on books and libraries smack a little of romantic cultural trash. The real problem is in the schools. If we get matters right there, people will make far greater use of the extraordinary facilities available in our libraries. I looked at computer print-outs of what people borrowed from our libraries and what is in the libraries. It was a disappointing study.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend spoke about the standard of teaching reading in

primary schools. Does he agree that the main problem is not so much in the schools as in the teacher training colleges? Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Walden: I would, but you would jump on me like a ton of bricks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went one step further down that road. You nod, Sir, although you do not have a brick in your hand yet.
I am trying to cut through the nonsense that I detected in the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and to get through to the essentials of what is wrong with our libraries.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that one of the problems is that people do not borrow enough library books. I presume that he knows of the Government's statistics which show that loans last year amounted to 500 million. I think that that is more per capita than any other European country. The hon. Gentleman is on the wrong tack if he is saying that the problem with our public library service is that it is not valued or used, because it certainly is.

Mr. Walden: I am sorry but I am going to say something that will shock the hon. Gentleman's egalitarian sentiments to the core. One should examine not only the statistics, which, as he knows, are a pretty crude form of measurement, but what people in fact borrow. This is dangerous territory. The word that I have in mind begins with the letter "e"—does he have it on his lips? The next letter is "1". If the hon. Gentleman examines what people borrow, one discovers that the quality is pretty depressing. Is not it awful that I am making quality judgments? The word begins with the letters "e" and "1" —has he got it? If one breaks down the statistics of the millions of books that are borrowed, one finds that the material is readily available at a cost of about £1·25—perhaps I am exaggerating because it is probably now £1·75—on the station bookstall.
I now touch on the hon. Gentleman's implied romanticism about libraries being a source for the elevation of public taste, but it is not like that. Let us be frank. I have examined the material and the hon. Gentleman clearly has not. He is talking about figures, but I am talking about the stuff that people buy. The hon. Gentleman's implication that ordinary people are able to have access to the great cultural traditions of this country, to our great literature and so on is technically true, but people do not read it. I shall not indulge in such nonsense because it is not true and the hon. Gentleman knows that. However, he must pretend that it is. He has the word beginning with "e1" on his mind. I had better give him a chance to speak.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has a justified reputation as someone with a good intellect. He is selling himself very short by such ill-informed and anecdotal nonsense. It would be interesting to know how many hours he has spent this year in public libraries. I suspect that if he is honest he might have spent a maximum of six hours there. Other people know much more about the public library service and do not rely on anecdotes and impressions gained by wandering into a library and saying, "Good Lord, Catherine Cookson has been borrowed a lot, but I don't see people borrowing Bertrand Russell" and concluding that that must mean that people borrow trash. First, that is wrong about Catherine Cookson and,


secondly, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the wide range of loans in the public library service. I speak as someone who was chairman of a public library authority for a number of years. I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about anecdotal and wrong information. He is not doing justice to the standards of analysis that he usually sets.

Mr. Walden: That was a long intervention. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman covered his flank quickly with regard to Catherine Cookson because it was a little boast.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman realises that several years ago authors' and public lending rights were introduced which meant that statistically our knowledge of libraries was greatly improved because we could discover who borrowed what. Instead of judging by the crude statistics of the number of books, which tell us nothing about how libraries were used, we could use computer print-outs.

Mr. Fisher: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walden: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head defensively. The Leader of the Opposition tends to do that when he is embarrassed.
I have computer print-outs from public libraries and I base my judgment partially on them. Otherwise my judgments are based on spending quite a lot of time—slightly more than the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central gratuitously implied—in public libraries. There are 120 villages in my constituency and I go out of my way to champion, where I think it reasonable and sensible, the existence of libraries in those villages. I know what I am talking about.
I have compared what goes on in our public libraries with what goes on in public libraries in France, in Russia and in China. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has done that too. Let us hear the benefit of his researches.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman should know that he is on the wrong track when he tries to adduce evidence from the public lending right because it applies only to living authors, who form quite a small amount of the book stocks of libraries. The hon. Gentleman gets only a partial view of the pattern of loans.

Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman raises his most valid point so far, which is not saying a lot. What he says is true because we do not pay dead authors. If we did, Shakespeare would be in a higher class. It is obvious that we have had an important complement of knowledge through the information, which must be put together with other information, about which books by non-20th century authors people borrow. I put those figures together.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I caution my hon. Friend not to rely on public lending right figures. They relate not only to living authors, but to authors living in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting, but it does not have a great deal to do with the regulations. I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) will return to the regulations.

Mr. Walden: I obey your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the

Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) as another limiting factor, but I insist that the use that is made of libraries should be studied seriously and not talked about as a form of cultural romanticism, as it so often is by the Opposition Front Bench.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made the particular point that my right hon. Friend the Minister would no doubt use the regulations as an excuse to turn the financial screw on libraries when they ask for more money. First, it is slightly ironic that the representative of the Labour party, which complains so much about centralising power, should complain when my right hon. Friend decentralises power within reason through the regulations and allows local authorities to charge what they want.
Secondly, I see no difficulty in saying to local authorities, "Yes, there is a limit on money. Yes, we attach importance to what you do in providing books, but you could charge for videos and such like because we know that that is what life is about. We make an exception of books, for the obvious reason that it is rather more difficult to get people to read books. If we were to charge for them, fewer people might read them. By and large—all the arguments are open to a bit of exception—that does not apply to videos or other services. We give you liberty to charge for the other services." If at the back of my right hon. Friend's mind is the thought that some of the income from those services could be used to support book-lending facilities or to extend the range of books, that is an entirely legitimate policy. I do not suggest for a moment that that is his thought, but it is mine.
The regulations could be said to put village libraries at risk, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has suggested, through privatisation. If that were to happen, village libraries would collapse because the clientele is too small and the libraries would not be viable. Two things need to be said about that. First, such libraries will not be privatised, because I see nothing in my right hon. Friend's statement to imply that they will. In fact, my right hon. Friend explicitly said the opposite. Secondly, earlier I said that I support all village libraries in my constituency. However, I do not support them if no one is reading their books. Let us be realistic. I have examples in my constituency where I have found it impossible to support a village library because no one has borrowed books from it. What am I supposed to do? I do not want to get into one of those cultural, romantic stews. Therefore, I say that I am sorry, but that if people start borrowing the books, I shall defend their library to the death.

Mr. Fisher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports his village libraries, but will he tell them that they will be particularly hit by the regulations with the removal of the maximum limit for reservations? By definition, a village library tends to have a small stock. The whole basis of our public library system has involved inter-library loans and the advance reservation of books. Because of the removal of the maximum charge for reservations, the hon. Gentleman's constituents who live in rural communities will be subject to a potentially unlimited charge for reservations. They will be penalised simply because they happen to live in an area with a small library that has a small stock.

Mr. Walden: I believe that my right hon. Friend is giving scope to local authorities to charge if they wish—


they are at liberty to do so. If my local authority raises reservation charges to the point where my village libraries are stifled, I shall kick up a fuss.
I assume that the figures that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central quoted about reservations apply to videos as well as to books——

Mr. Fisher: There is no dispute about that.

Mr. Walden: I dispute that in the sense that I make a distinction based on the "el" word—elitist—one should not mention because there would be gasps of horror on both sides of the Chamber. I make a distinction that conforms with reality.
I do not believe that what the hon. Gentleman has envisaged will happen, because life is not like that and because I have a sensible county council and I do not believe that the regulations will have such an impact on books as the hon. Gentleman has implied. If they did have such an impact, I would make a fuss about it. I am a realist and if I discovered that my right hon. Friend had inadvertently got something wrong, I would not hesitate to draw it to his attention. However, I am so confident about his overall judgment that I doubt whether those circumstances would arise.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the chance to speak briefly in the debate. I want to talk not about the content of the regulations, but about the manner in which they have been presented to the House. I want to raise a serious and important point.
Those of us who wish to take part in such debates like to go to the Vote Office to obtain a copy of the draft statutory instrument and to study it briefly. Obviously we turn to the explanatory note and we expect it to explain clearly what the statutory instrument is about. The explanatory note to the regulations must be read many times to be understood.
When I first arrived in the House in 1983 I raised the issue of gobbledegook. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is the Minister responsible for the civil service, would be the first to agree that there has been a great improvement in getting rid of such gobbledegook in documents produced by his colleagues in the civil service.
I am afraid that there has been a slip in the rate of progress when it comes to the regulations. The explanatory note states that section 8(2) of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964
empowers the Lord President of the Council … to make regulations authorising those library authorities to make charges for such library facilities made available by them as may be specified in the regulations and to make provision as regards charges by library authorities for library facilities, other than provision requiring the making of charges, as they think fit.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that intelligent people can, in time and with sufficient research assistants, make sense of all that. However, that is not good enough. Those people in my right hon. Friend's Department with responsibility for writing such nonsense as an explanatory note should be sent back, as from the classroom, to rewrite it in clear language that can be

understood by Members of Parliament who are too busy to waste hour after hour trying to understand the meaning of one paragraph.
I hope that I have made my point and that my right hon. Friend will discuss with his colleagues in the Ministry ways in which explanatory notes can be expressed clearly to the advantage of Members of Parliament and democracy.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I declare an interest at the outset: I am an author.
I read the regulations with great dismay, despite the gobbledegook and my right hon. Friend's assurance that his intention was to clarify existing regulations and bring others up to date. My dismay is centred on the knowledge that the key to any free society has to be access to information. Any obstacle that is placed in the way of our citizens obtaining access to information has to be deplored. I do not want to over-egg the argument, but it is a characteristic of Soviet-style totalitarianism that either the contents of libraries or access to them is controlled. I am worried that my right hon. Friend is placing an obstacle in the way of people's access to library facilities.
My worry centres on the discretion that my right hon. Friend so enthusiastically offers to local authorities. We have had bitter experience in the past two years of what happens when local authorities are given the slightest discretion—particularly in relation to the community charge and the amount that they charge for second homes. I believe that only one local authority took the option to offer a zero rate for second homes and an overwhelming number of the authorities opted to charge double—the maximum allowed under the legislation. In the light of that, I hope that my right hon. Friend will think carefully before offering such discretion to local authorities.
I accept that there is a difference between library and information services. I would not advocate not allowing local authorities to charge commercial organisations. I am not saying that the authorities should abuse the service, but they should take advantage of it. I could quite understand if charges were introduced for commercial organisations, but I am bound to say—despite my interest in the subject—that to charge a citizen to enter a library and use its services causes me grave concern. The Government are clearly worried about the issue, otherwise they would not have imposed a three-line Whip on the measure as the time approaches midnight! When the House divides, I shall have to vote against the Government.
There is a great demand for libraries. In addition to the other libraries in Devon, there is a marvellous central library in Torquay. I pay tribute to the hard work done in those libraries, which cater for a large number of pensioners who live in my constituency, are interested in the past and wish to research various obscure details of history. It is unacceptable that pensioners should be charged for any service that they seek in the library.
I have the Royal National Institute for the Blind in my constituency, so a high proportion of the population is partially sighted. The services offered by the library to the partially sighted such as large-print books and the talking book service are extremely important. I would deplore any obstacle placed in the way of those individuals.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will respond by saying that it is all a matter of discretion and local accountability and that in a democracy local authorities should be allowed to make their own decisions on priorities in their area. However, we have had a bitter experience with the community charge. I urge my right hon. Friend to take a page out of the Prime Minister's book and ensure that every library in the country has, not a citizens charter, but a library users charter, available to everyone who goes into the library so that users are aware of exactly what they can accept, what level of service they should receive, where the Government recommend an entirely free service and on which services my right hon. Friend thinks it appropriate to place a small charge—the emphasis being on small.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), made a great deal of the minimum, maximum or norm. But the reality is—he is perfectly right in this—that the so-called maximum will be the norm. My right hon. Friend the Minister must accept that. I hope that he will take the opportunity of incorporating into such a mini citizens charter the exact rights of library users.
There are so many sacred cows when local authorities are under intense financial pressure, but libraries are the key to a free society, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, even at this late stage, to think again about the draft regulations. I hope that he will not introduce them. I am bound to tell him that I shall certainly vote against them. I urge the dozens of colleagues who have come to support me this evening to follow me through the Opposition Lobby.

Mr. Renton: This has been an interesting short debate. Perhaps I may start by replying to the points just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) which, in some measure, take up points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman suffer from a profound misunderstanding. All that we are doing in the regulations is to clarify charges which in almost every case bar the charge for reservations already exist. Library authorities have welcomed that clarification. They welcome the removal of anomalies. We are introducing some small additional charging powers, but they do not apply to the basic provision of books for reading for anyone who lives in the area or to access for people to reference books in library premises. Those services are not being touched.
Essentially we are clarifying, removing anomalies and giving additional charging powers for such matters as the destruction of a book, for which there is no such charge at present. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay really think it reasonable that there should not be a charge? If someone wishes to reserve a book and there is a cost to the library for doing so, is not it reasonable to give library authorities the right or discretion to charge—which they do not have to use?
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who, despite his claim that he knew absolutely everything about the library service, seems astonishingly ignorant in some respects, that what we were doing tonight is, by and large, welcomed by the library authorities. It is not welcomed by

the Library Association—I regret that—but the association, in this and other matters, has taken a different view from that of FOLACL, the other professional body. The Library Association is wrong, in some respects misled, I think, by its chief executive. The Library Association makes two absurd comments in the literature it circulated to all Members, and I shall come to them in a moment.
I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has decided to vote against the regulations. That sits ill with his own position as an author and lover of books. The regulations are designed to help and improve the library service. If I had not given this discretion to local authorities, I would have been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House for that, too. My hon. Friend should not forget that library authorities have an overriding statutory duty to provide an efficient and comprehensix service. If they charged so excessively that they ceased to provide such a service, there would be every ground for complaint to me as the Minister with overall responsibility for seeing that local authorities carry out their duties. I would then investigate the complaints, as I am already doing in Derbyshire and Tyneside, where customers—readers—have complained that the authorities are abusing their powers. My hon. Friend's opposition to the regulations is wholly misguided and it does not show his usual perceptiveness in these issues.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) for his support and intelligent comments. As for his arrière pensée, perhaps the income from these charges will help library authorities to increase their activities in other areas. The Green Paper brought in by my non-Machiavellian predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), suggested that by widening charges for services and increasing existing charges to economic levels public libraries' income could double from about £22 million to £50 million a year—not a large figure. The latest CIPFA figures for 1989–90 show that income stands at just over £34 million. They also show that income is increasing in real terms, and it increased by at least 20 per cent. over the previous year.
Generally, the publication of the Green Paper on library financing in 1988 made library authorities think much more about increasing income in the very ways suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. It acted as a catalyst to make them think about what additional services they could provide on top of the basic service of providing books. They began to think about, for instance, charging for damaged books.
I accept the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on the sentence in the explanatory note that he read out. It certainly could have been better drafted. I hope that he will have found the rest of the regulations crystal clear without the help of the explanatory note.
I must reserve most of my comments for the astonishing speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. He has an amazing capacity to work himself into a lather about issues that do not justify it. Perhaps I misheard him, but I thought that he said that he would not oppose the regulations; that he supported them, in fact. Yet he seemed to find nothing right with them. He said that we were ruining the public library service by introducing them; that I intended to use them as a means of substituting the community charge on local authorities' areas; and so on. It added up to one of the most absurd speeches that I have ever heard.
The regulations bring light where there is darkness or confusion. That was the aim, and in many respects we have followed the wish of the library authorities.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister correctly recalls my opening remarks. I said that, in so far as the regulations clarify matters that were obscure in the 1964 Act, we welcomed them. The Library Association and librarians will welcome them for that reason. That is the main aim of the regulations, and the Opposition do not oppose that. I congratulate the Government on that clarification. However, as I tried to explain to the Minister, the Government were wrong to remove from the draft regulations the maximum limit on reservation charges. There are almost 7 million reservations a year, and the Minister has opened up a whole area of charging that will prove extremely onerous for public library users. We oppose that rather than the clarification.

Mr. Renton: As I said before, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thought that in his intervention he would make a new point rather than repeat himself. I say again that FOLACL strongly supported the removal of the maximum sum of £1·50. The federation thought that if it were introduced it would become the norm or a minimum and it considered that it was much better to allow library authorities to decide the matter for themselves.
I spoke about two points in the briefing issued by the Library Association, which opposes the regulations. First, it says that it was obscure of me not to put in a maximum charge of £1·50 but rather to leave the amount to be decided by local authorities. That is a strange view. I do not think that leaving out a figure can in any sense be called obscure.
Secondly, I am again accused of obscurity because in the definition of a computer I did not agree with the association that the word "electronic" should be inserted to give a definition of a device for storing and processing information. The association suggested that on that definition a card catalogue could be the same as a computer. I have never heard of a card catalogue that had an ability to process information. As has been explained to the association, the word "electronic" was not inserted because in the current local authorities definition it is not used in the definition of a computer. We thought it better to stick to the present definition to avoid confusion.
The Government have a very good record on the public library service. Some 480 million books were issued last year. That is slightly lower than the figure for the previous year. However, the number of sound video tapes is increasing all the time. In 1989–90, the figure was 20 million, which is a great increase on previous years. At least 29 new, extended or converted library buildings were opened in 1990. Those figures come for the Public Library Journal. Conservatives are wholly committed to the success of the public library service. We realise its great importance, not only for the education of our children, but for the continuing education of adults. In that spirit, and in the belief that the regulations will help library authorities to develop the basic library service, I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 22nd July, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Harold Walker): With permission, I shall put together the remaining Orders of the Day.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES

That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — BANKING

That the draft Bank Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Banks) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — BUILDING SOCIETIES

That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — MARINE POLLUTION

That the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

That the draft Scottish Seed Potato Development Council (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 14th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) ( European Standing Committees).

Orders of the Day — COPYRIGHT AND NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4173/91 relating to copyright and neighbouring rights, 4174/91 relating to accession to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations and 4175/91 relating to rental right, lending right and certain rights related to copyright; and supports the Government's intention to seek adequate protection for


copyright owners and performing artists throughout the European Community while having regard to the needs of users of copyright works and of the services of the performers—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Marine Simeon Ferrante

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On 14 August 1989 Royal Marine Simeon Ferrante died from head injuries he received during parachute training at RAF Brize Norton. No one meant him to die, no one wanted him to die. It was an accident, but not necessarily an unavoidable accident. Accidents do happen and often no one individual is to blame. Bad luck, a coincidence of events, momentary inattention, an act of God—any or none of these could be the cause. In the armed services, where training must necessarily be tough and realistic, accidents sometimes result in severe injury or death. This is why in peacetime safety procedures have to be stringent.
Simeon Ferrante was a green beret Marine and all that that signifies. Young, fit, courageous and keen, he was proud, as a reservist, to have attained the accolade of the distinctive head gear. That pride he shared with his close-knit family and many friends, and when he was selected for parachute training by the royals he could not contain his excitement. On 7 August 1989, his first jump went badly. He landed heavily, and, explaining to his colleagues that he had hit his head on landing, he showed clear signs of cranial injury—lassitude, nausea, headaches, vomiting and lack of concentration. They were all noticed by the students and RAF staff on the course. He attended the sick bay, something that, as many of those present who have served in the armed forces will know, in that young male society is sometimes felt to be an admission of weakness, and therefore undertaken only in extremis.
Marine Ferrante was seen by a newly qualified RAF doctor, who was one week into his first tour of duty with the RAF. That doctor has said that Simeon did not say that he had sustained a head injury on that day, and I have no reason to doubt his word; and whether his diagnosis and treatment—a viral infection and painkillers—are open to question, I am not qualified to judge. Perhaps a more probing investigation would have saved Simeon's life—I do not know.
What is also noteworthy is that the RAF instructors took no action over the following two days when Marine Ferrante continued to show the same clear symptoms. Perhaps they did not understand the significance of those symptoms—which would indicate a gap in the training of the trainers—or perhaps they were satisfied that the medical staff were handling it. I do not know, I have no access to their evidence at the board of inquiry. What I do know is that if Simeon Ferrante showed the symptoms that the—as far as I am aware—uncontested evidence says he did, he should not have been allowed to continue jump training. But continue he did, and on the third jump, on 10 August 1989, he again landed heavily, swiftly lapsed into a coma and died.
Mr. and Mrs. Ferrante understood that their son's death was the result of that last jump, and a tragic, unavoidable accident. They mourned the waste of a life, but raised no queries, for neither the services nor the Ministry had mentioned the earlier heavy landing. This they found out by chance. Then they started to ask questions. What else was being kept from them? Was


Simeon's death avoidable? What lessons could be learnt that might save others from the same grief that they were experiencing?
There were queries about safety equipment, the speed of response of the emergency services and medical training for parachute training instructors. There were doubts about the content and quality of evidence offered to the inquest, and real and understandable anger at the inconsiderate attitude of the RAF. The questions were many but the answers inadequate. I regret to say that Simeon's parents found the MOD unhelpful. They had to go to court to force the Ministry to provide answers. They may have to institute compensation proceedings, not for the money—it is clear that the balance of any award after costs will go to the Royal Marine Benevolent Fund—but in order to gain access to the facts.
Their experiences have led them to distrust the Ministry and that is partly the Ministry's fault, for the understandable climate of secrecy within the MOD is allowed to intrude into areas where it should have no place.
Of course, there are good reasons why the proceedings of boards of inquiry are classified, and I can think of three now. First, the proceedings may contain militarily sensitive information, but I suggest that that is not so in this case. Secondly, the privacy of proceedings encourages frank testimony, and that is always helpful. Thirdly, the facts that are disclosed at a board of inquiry may at some future date give rise to disciplinary action. However, their secrecy also creates problems. It is the MOD which decides what is disclosed, and by being at times unnecessarily secretive it gives the impression that it has something to hide even when it has not. It feeds the suspicion that secrecy is abused to cover up mistakes rather than keep secrets. That may be an entirely unworthy suspicion, but it is an understandable one, and one which does nothing but damage.
The families and the friends of those who are killed or injured need the reassurance of frankness to enable them to come to terms with their tragedy. Service men and their families would like the certainty of knowing that the faults that endangered their lives cannot be hidden under the cloak of secrecy and then ignored. There needs to be another way—a clearly independent way—of determining what should be disclosed when a board of inquiry is convened to investigate why a death or injury occurred in peacetime.
I shall suggest just one way in which that could be done. It could be by the appointment of a senior independent judge. He would comment on the terms of reference when a board was set up to examine a peacetime death or injury. He would be empowered to decide in what form and how much, and to whom, evidence from the board was disclosed. His aim would be the greatest possible frankness consistent with the nation's security and the rights of those who are involved in an inquiry. His recommendations could then be overruled only by a Minister, who in turn would be answerable to Parliament.
There may be a better way. It may be that tonight my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will suggest a better or different way. It is unlikely, however, that there could be a way more calculated to breed suspicion and thus damage the armed services than the one that we have now.
I believe that the Ferrante family has a right to the truth, even, or particularly, if it discloses negligence. The services have the right to expect that Ministers will not allow the fear of compensation costs to deter them from exposing those errors that make peacetime training unnecessarily hazardous. We all have the right to expect that those in the MOD or the services who deal with these sad cases have the compassion and sensitivity to put themselves in the position of the bereaved or that of the injured, and then to treat them as they themselves would wish to be treated.
We all understand that there are times when secrecy is essential. There are times, however, when it is unnecessary, unhelpful and cruel. The Ministry and my right hon. Friend are not unthinking, uncaring or unwilling to change. I hope that the case of Simeon Ferrante, tragically dead before his time, will be the spur that brings that change about.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) for bringing this case to the attention of the House, thereby affording me the opportunity to allay any fears that the Ministry of Defence is an uncaring and secretive Department.
Obviously there is nothing that can be said to the families that could alleviate their anguish at the tragic loss of their son. Nevertheless, I want to express to them publicly my sincere sympathy. I should now like to respond to certain of the major criticisms that have been levelled at my Department.
Simeon Ferrante enlisted in the Royal Marine Reserves on 12 November 1985, and joined a parachuting course for reservist soldiers and marines run by No. I Parachute Training School, RAF Brize Norton, from 30 July to 11 August 1989. He was parachuting at RAF Weston-on-the-Green on 10 August when he landed badly. He died four days later. On the day after the accident, a unit inquiry was convened at RAF Brize Norton and, following his death, a coroner's inquest was held, at which a verdict of accidental death was recorded.
Since then, my Department has received a considerable number of inquiries from the father and from hon. Members. There have been allegations of obsessive secrecy and that there may have been a cover-up over the circumstances surrounding the incident. There have been specific criticisms to which my hon. Friend referred, and to which I shall respond.
I will first cover Marine Ferrante's fitness to jump. It has been suggested that he had an accident on 7 August and should not have been allowed to jump on 10 August. It has been alleged that the Ministry of Defence refused to admit that Marine Ferrante had suffered a previous injury prior to that received on 10 August 1989. That is not so. My Department has never disputed the fact that Marine Ferrante was involved in two incidents, and that came out clearly at the coroner's inquest.
The records show that on 7 August, following a jump, Marine Ferrante vomited at the drop site and was referred to the medical attendant, who instructed him to see the doctor. There was no evidence to suggest that he had landed badly on that occasion. On questioning Marine Ferrante, the doctor was told that he had sustained a slight blow to the head on landing on 4 August 1989, which he


had not reported previously. The doctor carried out a full neurological examination but could find no evidence of injury, and concluded that he was suffering from a viral infection. Marine Ferrante was told to report back if there was no improvement in his condition or if it should worsen. I think that is important, because we were depending on Marine Ferrante to come back if his condition continued.
Parachute training instructions tell trainees that they should jump only if fit to do so. As an added safeguard, before leaving the aircraft, trainees have to confirm that they are ready and willing to jump; anyone who is not happy for any reason is not allowed to continue. The doctor had examined Marine Ferrante and found no reason to declare him unfit for duty, but had instructed him to report back to the medical centre if there was no improvement. There is no evidence that he reported back, and it must be presumed that he had regarded himself as being fit to jump on that fateful day.
I should mention that Marine Ferrante had jumped once already on 10 August, and it was following the second jump on that day that the accident occurred.
Having received the report of the RAF medical officer who examined Marine Ferrante prior to the jump of 10 August, the pathologist at the coroner's inquest commented that he understood that approximately five days before his acute head injury, Marine Ferrante had received another blow on the head—but there was no evidence of that at the post-mortem examination.
It has been claimed that the RAF were unhelpful and did not liaise with Mr. Ferrante or his family following the accident and subsequent death. Simeon Ferrante was a Royal Marine Reservist, and as such it is normal practice in an incident of that kind for the welfare support to the injured person and his family to be provided by the parent unit, rather than by the unit where the accident occurred. Obviously, the two services liaised closely, but the Marines took the lead in that regard, with the officers and senior NCOs of Martine Ferrante's parent unit, Royal Marines Reserve, Bristol, becoming actively involved from the outset by contacting the family to identify what support was needed.
Although a private funeral was held, there was a military attendance. The station commander at RAF Brize Norton wrote to the family expressing his condolences two days after Marine Ferrante had died. He subsequently received a letter from Mr. Ferrante, thanking him for the discreet and sympathetic manner in which he and the RAF had conducted themselves. Not unreasonably, the station commander at RAF Brize Norton concluded that Mr. Ferrante felt that everything had been done that could be done and that: the Royal Marines were providing the necessary follow-on support.
There followed a series of letters from Mr. Ferrante, seeking details of his son's death. Because the exchange of correspondence appeared not to be helpful to Mr. Ferrante, two senior RAF officers visited Mr. and Mrs. Ferrante in an attempt to answer all Mr. Ferrante's questions, and to allay any misgivings that he might have about the circumstances surrounding the accident. When the officers left Mr. Ferrante, they believed that they had answered his questions fully and satisfactorily; indeed, they subsequently received a telephone call of thanks and a letter from Mr. Ferrante. Mr. Ferrante, however, continued to ask the same questions.
An inquiry was convened on 11 August 1989 at RAF Brize Norton. Its terms of reference were wide ranging, and designed to establish the full facts. Among the more important considerations was the requirement to determine the cause of the accident and whether anyone had failed in his duties, and to make any appropriate recommendation.
The inquiry found that Marine Ferrante was injured in the course of the performance of his official duties. There was no question of any negligence on his part; he had exercised reasonable care throughout. The inquiry also found that the staff of No.1 Parachute Training School had taken reasonable care in training Marine Ferrante. After he had completed six parachute descents to a satisfactory standard, they were entitled to believe that Marine Ferrante was capable of safely undertaking his seventh training descent. The seventh descent was properly organised and controlled, and therefore the inquiry found that no member of staff had failed in his duty.
The inquiry made some recommendations for change —that a servicing schedule should be introduced for all types of parachutists' helmets, that at the start of all courses a check should be made by a safety equipment fitter of each trainee's helmet, that trainees should be instructed in the proper use and care of their helmets—including internal and external serviceability checks—and that standing orders should be reviewed to reflect current procedures for checking helmets.
The inquiry was completed on 18 September 1989. It was subsequently reopened following a request from the coroner's office that further witnesses be called, and that statements be taken from them to enable the inquiry to determine the date on which Marine Ferrante first received a blow to the head; to resolve any points of difference between existing evidence and the new statements taken from students on the same course as Marine Ferrante; and to clarify any points arising, amending previous findings if necessary.
All Marine Ferrante's fellow students were asked whether they had witnessed Marine Ferrante receiving any injury on either 4 or 7 August. Statements were taken from those who felt that they could contribute to the investigation. Those witnesses were called to the reopened inquiry. Having considered their statements along with the previous ones, the inquiry considered that its original finding should remain unchanged. It concluded that Marine Ferrante first sustained a blow to the head on 4 August 1989.
Mr. Ferrante was issued with a summary of the inquiry on 10 July 1990 and, following his successful application for a writ for pre-action discovery of documents, his solicitors have been sent the full report.
That brings me to one of the crucial areas in which my Department has been criticised—that of excessive secrecy in the refusal to give Mr. Ferrante a full copy of the inquiry report. It may help if I say a few words about the status and purpose of board of inquiry reports.
The Royal Air Force derives its authority for holding boards of inquiry from the Air Force Act 1955, statutory rules made thereunder and Queen's regulations for the RAF. Boards of inquiry may inquire into all manner of things. Generally, their primary purpose is to investigate and report on the facts about the matter referred to them by the convening authority, and to make recommendations aimed at preventing a recurrence of an accident.
It is of overriding importance, particularly in cases of injury or death, to establish the facts as quickly as possible. Lives may depend on it. It is essential, therefore, that witnesses appearing before a board of inquiry should give their evidence in a full and frank manner. One must remember that some of the witnesses will be young, or of very junior rank; they may be required to give their evidence in difficult circumstances; they may have to criticise the actions of fellow service men, their close comrades even, or of their senior officers; or they may themselves have made mistakes which contributed to an incident, about which, for the good of the services, we would want them to be completely open and frank. Board of inquiry procedures have, therefore, been designed to do everything possible to encourage witnesses to come forward and to be absolutely candid when giving their evidence to this end.
Boards of inquiry are conducted as internal investigations. They are not held in public. Section 135(5) of the Air Force Act 1955 provides that evidence given by a witness may not be used against him in any subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The report of the board of inquiry is regarded as confidential to the service and the Department and, unless the courts order otherwise, only those within the service and the Department who need to see it in the course of their duties will see it.
Equally I must emphasise that it is not the wish of the services to deny those with a genuine and valid interest their right to know what happened in a particular incident. My hon. Friend's constituent clearly had such a right in this case. It is, therefore, my Department's practice to make available on request a narrative summary of the Department's investigations, which contains all the material facts. As I have explained, this procedure was followed in Mr. Ferrante's case. In addition, my Department endeavoured to answer the large number of supplementary questions raised by Mr. Ferrante both through direct correspondence and under cover of correspondence from my hon. Friend. Mr. Ferrante has remained dissatisfied with what I consider to be the very positive response of my Department, and to this end Mr. Ferrante has, in contemplation of taking legal proceedings, obtained an order from the courts for discovery of documents. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on these proceedings. I am, however, satisfied that my Department, through the good offices of the Treasury Solicitor, has made every effort to comply with the terms of the order.
An inquest into the death of Marine Ferrante was opened and adjourned on 15 August 1989. The inquest was reopened on 6 June 1990 and returned a verdict of accidental death. It has been alleged by Mr. Ferrante that his son suffered a previous head injury which contributed to his death, but, in view of the lack of reliable evidence, the coroner left this point open. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the findings of the inquest. Mr. Ferrante is not content with this conclusion and wishes to have the inquest reopened. While my Department has no reason to dispute the findings of Her Majesty's coroner for Oxford, it would not object to a reopened inquest if that was considered to be necessary.
At the inquest, there was some discussion of the condition of the helmets used by trainee parachutists at

RAF Brize Norton. Following the death of Marine Ferrante, an RAF safety fitter, responsible for examination and servicing of RAF flying helmets rather than the Army parachute helmets used on this course, inspected the Army helmets and considered a large number to be in a poor condition. However, an expert from the stores and clothing research and development establishment told the inquest that the defects were "normal wear" and were not of
significance with respect to the impact performance
of the helmets. Furthermore, the evidence of the pathologist was that for the particular injury sustained by Marine Ferrante
there is no form of helmet than can help.
It has also been alleged that accident and emergency services provision at Weston-on-the-Green were inadequate and that a specialist ambulance should have been summoned from Frenchay hospital, Bristol. There is always an ambulance with a medical attendant present whenever parachuting is taking place. I have to say that the service ambulance in which Marine Ferrante was taken to the John Radcliffe hospital was equipped to the standard of a crash ambulance on the fire line of an RAF operational flying station. It contained resuscitation equipment and was equipped with a blue light, which was activated in transporting Marine Ferrante to the nearest hospital. The hospital was advised in advance to expect him and I have no doubt provided the highest standard of care, for which it is rightly renowned.
Another area of concern to Mr. Ferrante is whether training is given to parachute instructors so that they will recognise concussion or other forms of illness that could impair the safety of trainee parachutists and what first aid training is given. All parachute jumping instructors obtain a first-aid certificate during basic training as a physical training instructor. That includes the recognition of concussion. There is no requirement for training to be given in the recognition of any forms of illness, as trainees have immediate access to fully qualified medical officers the moment they feel unwell. During all forms of parachute training, there is a medical attendant and ambulance available at all times. There is always an individual responsibility to report sick if the trainee considers that he is unfit to continue training. That is laid down in Queen's regulations.
Following the inquest, the Ministry wrote to Mr. Ferrante on 17 August 1990 suggesting that he seek legal advice in respect of submitting a claim against the Ministry. I can assure the House that my Department will not attempt to avoid responsibility should negligence be established.
I should like to deal with the difficulty that my Department experienced in corresponding with Mr. Ferrante. In the period immediately following this tragic accident, Mr. Ferrante wrote a large number of letters to RAF officers. The recipients of the letters recognised the right of Mr. Ferrante to be given as much information as possible about his son's death, and gave him detailed replies. However, it is not our practice, for the reasons I have described, to disclose verbatim proceedings of boards of inquiry, although we are always prepared to provide an accurate summary to the next of kin.
Mr. Ferrante was visited by two RAF officers, who sought to explain the situation. Following that meeting, the correspondence continued and was addressed to a wide range of RAF officers and officials throughout my


Department. The House will understand the dilemma facing those responsible for corresponding with Mr. Ferrante. On the one hand, they wished to give a grieving father the information that he needed to come to terms with the death of his son, and on the other they wished to avoid perpetuating the correspondence. Once all the facts that could have been given had been given, there was little more to be said. My officials considered this matter most carefully and decided in October 1990 to advise Mr. Ferrante that no further letters from him would be answered. That decision was not taken lightly and of course it did not extend to correspondence from hon. Members from whom 12 inquiries have been received and answered. Correspondence has also continued with Mr. Ferrante's legal advisers.
Mr. Ferrante's legal advisers wrote to the Department in February this year intimating that a claim would be

made. That was followed by an order for discovery of certain documentation that would allow them to advise their client whether any proceedings brought by him would have reasonable prospects of success.
I have attempted to explain as fully as possible the background to the public unease surrounding the death of Marine Simeon Ferrante. I have stated that my Department will not try to avoid responsibility should anybody be blamed for this tragic accident. Clearly, in addressing the question of liability, we will need to consider the claim which, I understand, Mr. Ferrante will be presenting. As I have said, we await a statement of claim which, when received, will be considered by my Department in consultation with legal advisers.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to One o'clock.